i'm not sure im understanding your premise but if i'm at all close, you may be taking the word 'innocent' too literally or in a sense other than it's understood in the context of criminal prosecution.

in the strictest sense, noone is innocent. no jury is competent nor capable of declaring a defendant innocent. real life verdicts are formed very narrowly to find the accused either guilty of violating a specific statute as the prosecution alleges or not guilty of the charged violation.

whether the terms 'innocent' and 'not guilty' are commonly used interchangeably, most people comprehend the difference. otherwise there'd be only convictions.

the only exception to all of the above of which i'm aware is the lowly traffic offense. when you're presented with a traffic ticket, you're required to sign a promise to appear at the place at the time and date specified on the form. you're also informed your signature is not an admission of guilt. if you refuse to sign, you'll be taken into custody. when you appear as promised, you are then required to make a payment equal to the amount you'll be fined should you decide not to contest the charge. if you assert your right to have the charge adjudicated, you are still required to post pail in the same amount.

if you are accused of violating any statute other than those contained in the state vehicular code, there's a third option: you can be released on your own recognizance (in other words, the court recognizes you as being a person of your word and your promise to appear is sufficient to forego actually putting up a bailment.)

try to arrange that the next time you're summonsed to appear for a traffic violation.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty A Misunderstood and Misused Term By: Eastern Diamondback Posted: 3/5/2005 12:59:33 AM Let's start off appropriately. Innocent until proven guilty is really only relevant within the court of law. So to all his supporters, please stop exclaiming Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty at the top of your lungs. The only people that that concerns are the judge and, more importantly, the jury. But is innocent until proven guilty even a realistic statement? Is it even logical? I argue that based on the setup on our legal system, it is a total fallacy to use such a statement. The term innocent is an affirmative statement. To say someone is innocent, I would think, means that innocence has been proven through the submission of supportive evidence. In this respect, innocence cannot reasonably be presumed, it must be proven

That my friend is where you are under a false assumption. In our legal system you are assumed to be innocent. And guilt must be proven. Hence the rules pertaining to gathering evidence. Which is usually used to try and prove guilt. For the most part a defense attorney sticks to refuting the prosecutors evidence.

Kingbee, We agree!  I have the same take on the article.

But DR Miller, you have it correct.  I think if he had used your definition in his premise, it would have voided a lot of confusion!

Eastern, I Wish I had commented on those first 2 first!  But both are to the point.  I think you mis stated your premise.  Altho you did make a good arguement on the issue.  Well said

i'm not sure im understanding your premise but if i'm at all close, you may be taking the word 'innocent' too literally or in a sense other than it's understood in the context of criminal prosecution.

My whole point is twofold. 1. That there is no reason for it to be taken too literally because it has no place in the legal system. Vague or illogical wordings need to be clarified. There's no reason why we should have to hope that jurors understand the distinction.
2. It is annoying in layman usage. OJ Simpson is not an innocent man or a victim because a jury found him not guilty (the corollary of a not guilty verdict is that, based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty the defendent really would be deemed "innocent" if not proven guilty).

in the strictest sense, noone is innocent. no jury is competent nor capable of declaring a defendant innocent. real life verdicts are formed very narrowly to find the accused either guilty of violating a specific statute as the prosecution alleges or not guilty of the charged violation.

Absolutely not true. While the procedure is not set up for a defendant to be found "innocent," a defendant can be shown to be factually and functionally innocent of a crime. When evidence submitted shows that it is physically impossible for a defendant to have committed a crime, a defendant has, in practice, been found innocent. Say a defendant is accused of committing a crime (not conspiracy) in Los Angeles. If it comes out during the defense's case that the defendant was actually in New York while the crime was committed, the man has been proven innocent. This is not the same as being "found innocent." The American legal system doesn't find people innocent.

whether the terms 'innocent' and 'not guilty' are commonly used interchangeably, most people comprehend the difference. otherwise there'd be only convictions.

No, that would be the case if everybody believed they were interchangeable. Hung juries are the more likely result. I served on a jury in a armed robbery before, and our deliberations lasted about six hours longer than they should have because three of the other jurors were cloudy on their understanding of "innocent" and "not guilty." When we came to the unanimous verdict of "not guilty," we faced the wrath of the victim, his family, and a handful of people from his neighborhood, who took our verdict to mean we thought the defendant was innocent of wrongdoing. The question during deliberations is supposed to be did the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not did the defendent commit the crime or not.

You may find it hard to believe, but after driving for almost two decades, I have never received a ticket; not for a moving violation nor for parking violations.

That my friend is where you are under a false assumption. In our legal system you are assumed to be innocent. And guilt must be proven. Hence the rules pertaining to gathering evidence. Which is usually used to try and prove guilt. For the most part a defense attorney sticks to refuting the prosecutors evidence.

I think you're missing the point. The defendant borought in on charges should not be considered innocent or guilty. Innocence does not even need to be considered. Eliminate innocent until proven guilty from the courtroom, and replace it with:

1. Being arrested, charged, and placed on trial is NOT evidence of the defendant's guilt and cannot be considered as such.
2. The prosecutors must prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the defendant is under no obligation to prove his innocence.

Once innocent until proven guilty is removed from the courtroom and replaced with my suggestions, there will be no reason for it's colloquial fraternal twin to exist anymore.

think you're missing the point. The defendant borought in on charges should not be considered innocent or guilty. Innocence does not even need to be considered. Eliminate innocent until proven guilty from the courtroom, and replace it with: 1. Being arrested, charged, and placed on trial is NOT evidence of the defendant's guilt and cannot be considered as such. 2. The prosecutors must prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the defendant is under no obligation to prove his innocence.

And how do you consider either of these points to not equal "innocent until proven guilty"? Taken together the equal the same thing.

oh boy here we go..... In america it's is said "you are innocent until proven guilty" but is that the truth?I see the media deciding if your guilty or innocent long before any case reaches court. The only chance one has in a court of law is if you have money.. lots and lots of money and keep the elite media off your back. In america sadly it's you are guilty until proven innocent.

And how do you consider either of these points to not equal "innocent until proven guilty"? Taken together the equal the same thing.

Because innocent means that one is definitely and absolutely not responsible for a crime. How can such a concept be presumed for a suspect and defendant about to be placed on trial?