100%, which I'm not sure is a good thing. BTW, there's no 'allegedly' about OJ Simpson; he was acquitted after a fair trial and is therefore innocent. Sticks in the craw of many, but what can you do?
an innocent man wouldn't have been sued for wrongful death, therefore he was guilty. he just didn't go to prison but was ruined, like he should have been
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. (wiki)
Presumption of innocence is a right of the people. You are innocent if you are not proven guilty. Ergo, as far as federal criminal court is concerned, he is innocent.
I dont know much about this case specifically, so my comment is meant in general. But if you killed someone and a jury couldnt proof your guilt, that doesnt retroactively alter the fact and means that suddenly the timeline changes and you havent killed anyone. If you have killed someone, you are not innocent. Something being proven or not does not change the facts that actually happened. (legally being found not guilty is a different thing)
Ha! I am a lawyer, though not an American one. Weird laws over there. Still, this principle is the same - not guilty is innocent in the eyes of the law. Obviously he's not actually innocent, but legally he most certainly is. The clue lies in the fact he didn't go to jail for murder. The word "allegedly" is misused, at least in its legal sense, which would be used to state that he is accused, but not yet tried. OJ was tried and acquitted, so he's innocent and not allegedly a killer (legally).
He still killed his ex wife. JetPunk quizzes are not written in indecipherable legalese. Though that could be an interesting subject for another quiz...
The OJ Simpson trial was a farce. He was found not guilty of the murders after a trial that was broadcast live on TV (which made it be influenced by popular opinion) and had a jury with members continually being replaced for no particularly good reason. Except it was so clearly a miscarriage of justice no matter whether he was guilty of not, so they had another trial in which he was found guilty, but not of murder because he had already been cleared of that and so they couldn't reverse the decision. Instead he was found "responsible" for the deaths (whatever that means, presumably he didn't kill them by accident), and was ordered to pay the families of the victims so much money that he went bankrupt. It is an excellent example of the principle that the laws applying to ordinary people just don't apply to certain groups (in this case famous people). The punishment for murder should be prison, or whatever better system can be found, not public humiliation and bankruptcy.
He was found innocent in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial you can be charged with a crime, such as murder. Later, he was sued by the Goldman family in a civil court. In a civil court, you cannot be charged with a crime, and you cannot be found guilty or innocent. But you can be found responsible to pay damages. In this case, OJ was found responsible for the death of the Goldman's son, and was supposed to pay restitution. He declared bankruptcy and had property in other states that they couldn't touch so they didn't get much. However, years later when he wrote his reprehensible book "If I Did It," they were able to stop publication. The book later came out with the added subtitle "Confessions of a Killer," with all proceeds going to the Goldmans.
If Simpson's acquittal amounted to a finding of innocence it would have barred the subsequent civil judgment finding that he killed his former wife and Ron Goldman. It didn't.
An acquittal is not a declaration of innocence; it merely establishes that he was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible to get a judicial declaration of innocence, although that rarely if ever happens--I know a Southern California lawyer who achieved that remarkable result for a basketball coach accused of sexual misconduct that he was able to prove did not happen.
Oh, and, in reality you can't just be acquitted of something and suddenly be innocent whether you killed anyone or not. Maybe in the system designed to give judges a mandate to do whatever they like (after wasting everyone's time and money) that is the law, but not in reality.
Jared did a lot worse than collect child porn (although that in itself is despicable). He actually had sex with 12 year old girls and was hunting for more at the time of his arrest.
It's possible that JFK was accidentally shot by one of his own secret service agents. The first shot(which came from Oswald's gun) passed through the back of his seat and through his chest, and the second kill shot, which exploded on impact unlike the first shot, came from two separate guns. See Bonar Menninger's "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" and the TV documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun".
I'm a bit surprised Gavrilo Princip doesn't get a mention. He's the only one here who managed to start a whole world war, when he shot Archduke Ferdinand.
The rivalries and treaties were complex, but there is absolutely no doubt that Austria's moves against Serbia in retribution for their citizen's murder of Austria's heir apparent triggered all the defense pacts to fall into place putting everyone at war.
Given that that was an act of terror/revolution, it would be slippery to call Princip a "criminal." Yes, he was a murderer, but it was a whole international thing, and he kind of goes into a different category, I think.
Never sure if sirhan sirhan is a soccerplayer or not.. but that is ( had to look it up) zinedine zidane... (Ithought sidon sidane or something,so even closer)
Surprised the % for Princip is as high as it is. Maybe that's an indication of the large number of non-Americans here. While many Americans could tell you who got killed, and maybe what country he was from, I'd guess that very few could say who did the shooting.
It kind of fascinating how Timothy McVeigh has seemingly disappeared from the cultural zeitgeist. I'm surprised he so low on the list relative to someone like Jared Fogle
I got really into Charlie Manson and watched documentaries and movies (Mansons Lost Girls is a good one). Him and his family killed 4 people at the Tate home that night, a record producer a couple days before, and a couple who lived a houses away from Doris Days sons old house (another record producer, he wasn't home). The family was also suspected to have been part of the "accidental" drowing of Dennis Wilson (a Beach Boy) even though it was 13 years after Charlie went to prison. He apparently told Charlie that he could get him into the music industry and didn't. It's actually crazy the things he was able to make people do. They also found thousands of human bones in a 3 mile radius of the Ranch they all lived on suspecting that there were hundreds more people who were murdered by him and his family. Oh and if the guy who killed the record producer wasn't caught sleeping in his car with the knife they used, they may not have been caught. Luckily Linda Casabian left and turned them in.
Can you please accept some alternate spellings for Gacy and Dahmer? (I know "alternate"=wrong, but it isn't like they are vocabulary words. Gacey, Gasey, and Daumer are all plausible spellings if you have only heard them.)
Presumption of innocence is a right of the people. You are innocent if you are not proven guilty. Ergo, as far as federal criminal court is concerned, he is innocent.
Exactly, but we're not the federal criminal court.
An acquittal is not a declaration of innocence; it merely establishes that he was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible to get a judicial declaration of innocence, although that rarely if ever happens--I know a Southern California lawyer who achieved that remarkable result for a basketball coach accused of sexual misconduct that he was able to prove did not happen.
The alternate realities get strange pretty fast.