• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -511 months ago

    Where does the judge say that evidence was insufficient for a verdict? I missed that part.

    Also, are we going to start questioning every verdict as if any accusation was true, even when proved differently in court?

    • MushuChupacabra
      link
      fedilink
      1011 months ago

      “Where does the judge say that evidence was insufficient for a verdict? I missed that part.”

      The primary cause of your confusion is your insistence on missing the point.

      “Also, are we going to start questioning every verdict as if any accusation was true, even when proved differently in court?”

      Again, missing the point. Who is talking about every verdict, besides yourself? This is Kevin Spacey specific.

      Do you believe that not getting convicted means that the accused did not do the thing that they are accused of?

      Is it your personal belief that Kevin Spacey is completely harmless with respect to sexual predation? Does your confidence extend far enough that you would have no qualms about a young male relative of yours work on a movie with Kevin Spacey?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        611 months ago

        Reading you comment I searched for the differences between being “not guilty” and being “innocent” and boy I didn’t know enough about the US justice system. I thought a “not guilty” verdict was the same as “the guy didn’t do it”. I stand corrected, though. Thanks for your input.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m not sure where you’re from. But that principle by no means is limited to the US but pretty much present in every western country.

          The whole idea is to prevent false convictions at the cost of guilty people walking free if their guilt can’t be proven.