JBE

March 16th, 2016 at 7:07 AM ^

A court of law decides punishment based on evidence. In reality it still happened or didn't.

Joined: 08/18/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

Everyone Murders

March 16th, 2016 at 9:06 AM ^

I'm always a bit troubled how so many conflate "not guilty" with "innocent". 

If a guy, let's call him ... Orenthal, commits double murder and the jury comes in with a "not guilty" verdict, that does not make Orenthal "innocent".  Orenthal may or may not be innocent.  What exactly happened the night of the (hypothetical) double murder is largely unknown to all but the victims.

To put a finer point on JBE's excellent rejoinder, there are two parts to this.  A judge or jury first determines whether there is sufficient evidence to declare the defendant "guilty".  Then the judge determines the sentence based on number of factors, including evidence, sentencing recommendations, sentencing guidelines, etc.

JBE's key point remains spot on and worth repeating.  "Not Guilty" =/= "Innocent".  The corallary holds true, too.  "Guilty (Verdict)" =/= "Guilt (Factual)".

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

ijohnb

March 16th, 2016 at 9:31 AM ^

is a completely arbitrary distinction.  Guilt, in the American justice system, is based on whether a judge or jury determine an individual to be guilty of a crime.  If a judge or a jury determines that guilt has not been proven, a person is not guilty of that crime.  Within the confines used to give words such as "guilty" any meaning within this context, there cannot be another definition of the word considered in this equation.  To determine otherwise, there would not be one person in this country "rightly" imprisoned because nobody knows and nobody can ever know whether they are guilty of a crime, all that can be determined is whether they were found guilty, which does not satisfy your requirement that they ACTUALLY committed the crime - so Habeas for all because this petty court system can never know for sure.  You cannot have it both ways.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Everyone Murders

March 16th, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^

Your first argument is not wrong - if a court finds a person "guilty" of a crime, then that person is "guilty" in the eyes of the court.  It's just a tautology.  So no quarrel with the first part of your statement, although it's not particularly meaningful given that you keep it all in a "legal context". All things are what they are.

Then I think you start making some leaps. All I'm saying is that just because someone is found guilty of doing a crime does not mean that they actually did the crime. It's surprising to me that this is controversial (and I know from your comments that you're a thoughtful person).

And how that translates to "Habeas for all" is beyond me. I can have it both ways. Morally and factually innocent people are found legally guilty. And morally and factually guilty people are found "not guilty". Happens all the time. 

The bottom line is that we have an imperfect legal system (as all legal systems are).  Judges and juries get it wrong on occasion. 

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

ijohnb

March 16th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^

as it bothers you when people conflate "not-guilty" with "innocent," so too does it bother me when people say "not guilty does not mean innocent" and think they are laying down some serious philosophical knowledge.  In truth, in the confines of the criminal justice system, not guilty does mean innocent as there is no viable or recognizable middle ground.  So, you really have to seperate it into two conversations or neither has any meaning.  I believe that the criminal justice system found Orenthal "innocent," because it is the opposite of guilt and they found him not to be guilty.  

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Lumpy_wolverine

March 16th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^

The problem here, I think, is that there are two different contexts that we use the terms, "guilty" and "innocent".

 

"Guilty" and "innocent", as legal terms, describe what happens in the criminal courtroom.  However, we also use these terms to make moral judgements ("what actually happened" when we have some idea of it).  A person could be reasonably declared "not guilty" in court - thus legally "innocent" but still be a dispicable human being who committed double murder, and morally guilty of the crime.

 

Joined: 02/01/2013

MGoPoints: 1554

Everyone Murders

March 16th, 2016 at 11:56 AM ^

Wesq stated

In a court of law. In real life it either happened or it didn't.

You now seem to be taking almost the exact same position.  Yet this subthread started with you disputing the point.  (Wesq's point of "in a court of law" is the same as your "in the confines of the criminal justice system".  Wesq was saying that it is "two conversations".)

So I know we're arguing, but I'm not sure what we're arguing about.  FTR, I'm with Wesq's original point, which was there is a distinction between a determination of guilt in a court and whether someone did the crime.

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

BigBlue02

March 16th, 2016 at 5:38 PM ^

You don't know what you're arguing about because ijohnb decided to change what he was saying so he could argue more. He wanted to make a point about our legal system but when it was pointed out that "guilty" and "not guilty" have different meanings depending on where they are used, he decided to say the exact thing he was arguing in the first place

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: -1003

DrewGOBLUE

March 15th, 2016 at 11:23 PM ^

Attorney Frank J. Manley said he expects his client to be cleared...

“This is the type of accusation one would make toward a coward, not toward a champion.”


WTF?

Joined: 12/03/2011

MGoPoints: 2953

ijohnb

March 16th, 2016 at 6:37 AM ^

is probably directed more toward the people in and around Flint than anybody else. Aside from Glen Rice, Mateen is probably the most cherished sports product of the city. Those Flint Northern teams were a cultural phenomenon in Flint. Just last year he did a speaking tour at Flint schools. He is the prodigal son of Genesee County, or was, I should say. (My guess is that there will a change of venue filed by the prosecution. Worthy's involvement is perplexing. It would seem the Attorney General would come in in the conflict situation as described).

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

bronxblue

March 15th, 2016 at 11:24 PM ^

Ugh, that's not good for anyone involved.  Obviously innocent until proven guilty and we don't have a lot of details, but this is pretty terrible if true.  

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171968

TruBluMich

March 16th, 2016 at 2:31 AM ^

What are you talking about Izzo said he feels bad for (wait for it) HIM and HIS family. I feel horrible for his family but if this is true I don't feel bad at all for Cleaves. I can understand not wanting to believe anyone your associated with is capable of this but you can at least show some concern for the victim. Best idea is to have no public opinion until after you see the evidence and support them until you are positive it's false.

Joined: 08/03/2011

MGoPoints: 22500

ijohnb

March 16th, 2016 at 5:20 AM ^

should just be deleted now. A thread titled "Trump? Discuss!" would fair better than this thread will.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

ijohnb

March 16th, 2016 at 7:23 AM ^

on the jury. A jury comprised of Flint residents is not going to be eager to convict Mateen Cleaves right now. We will have a better indicator once some other details come out.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

ijohnb

March 16th, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^

has not been determined yet. Worthy was brought in due to a conflict with the prosecutor's office in Genesee County, but I have heard nothing about a change of venue yet nor really clear reason why there would be one. if I was the defense I would "strenuously object."

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Space Coyote

March 16th, 2016 at 9:02 AM ^

It is always an awful look when it looks like rivals are gloating about players/former players doing something like this, where someone was potentially assaulted. This is terrible for everyone, true or not.

I know Mateen is a hated rival, particularly with his role in the Fab 5 story, but he's also revered in Flint, a city that honestly doesn't have a whole lot of people to revere. To me, that makes this incredibly sad regardless of the outcome. Kids that don't have a lot of male role models now have questions about one that they actually had, one that actually made it out.

Joined: 06/18/2009

MGoPoints: 38962