4 ms·

Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing? Don't they become false accusers at that stage? Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when def

Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing? Don't they become false accusers at that stage? Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Potentially? "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."
- morpheos137 5y ago
  Is this 1984 style newspeak? In Common Law countries defendants in criminal proceedings are afforded a presumption of innocent. Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed.
  - orra 5y ago
    > In Common Law countries (FYI, Scots law is not solely common law. Scots law is a hybrid civil and common law.) > Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed. The point the other poster was making is: being found Not Guilty or Not Proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial does not imply the accused was morally innocent. Often juries may suspect the accused is morally guilty but feel there is insufficient evidence. Jurors in the UK however are never allowed to talk about their deliberations. So we can't know their reasoning.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    You are pretending that the legal definition of innocence is the same as the moral or colloquial definition. They aren't remotely the same.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    If this were a courtroom, sure.
- celticninja 5y ago
  I disagree, innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty implies guilt has not been proven, therefore remaining innocent.
  - andrewaylett 5y ago
    Specifically, innocent in the eyes of the law. The legal status is very different from the factual question of whether he actually did it, which is why different legal processes have different standards of proof. And also why procedural problems, which obviously don't change whether or not the event happened, can still result in the accused being found innocent in the eyes of the law. I'd also point out that "his behaviour was not bad enough for him to be convicted of a crime" isn't exactly a ringing character endorsement. Especially when the Scottish Government messed up the prosecution, something they really shouldn't have been involved in.
micv 5y ago
There not being enough evidence to convict does not equal a false accusation.

Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing? Don't they become false accusers at that stage? Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Potentially? "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."

morpheos137 5y ago
Is this 1984 style newspeak? In Common Law countries defendants in criminal proceedings are afforded a presumption of innocent. Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed.
- orra 5y ago
  > In Common Law countries (FYI, Scots law is not solely common law. Scots law is a hybrid civil and common law.) > Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed. The point the other poster was making is: being found Not Guilty or Not Proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial does not imply the accused was morally innocent. Often juries may suspect the accused is morally guilty but feel there is insufficient evidence. Jurors in the UK however are never allowed to talk about their deliberations. So we can't know their reasoning.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  You are pretending that the legal definition of innocence is the same as the moral or colloquial definition. They aren't remotely the same.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  If this were a courtroom, sure.
celticninja 5y ago
I disagree, innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty implies guilt has not been proven, therefore remaining innocent.
- andrewaylett 5y ago
  Specifically, innocent in the eyes of the law. The legal status is very different from the factual question of whether he actually did it, which is why different legal processes have different standards of proof. And also why procedural problems, which obviously don't change whether or not the event happened, can still result in the accused being found innocent in the eyes of the law. I'd also point out that "his behaviour was not bad enough for him to be convicted of a crime" isn't exactly a ringing character endorsement. Especially when the Scottish Government messed up the prosecution, something they really shouldn't have been involved in.

micv 5y ago

There not being enough evidence to convict does not equal a false accusation.