Active Now

Slartibartfast
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Vindicating oneself is meaningless. EVERYONE is ALWAYS innocent. The ONLY vindication comes from others, not the alleged perp. Right?
RosieG

Vindicating oneself is meaningless. EVERYONE is ALWAYS innocent. The ONLY vindication comes from others, not the alleged perp. Right?

I AM INNOCENT! . So is every perp in every situation from time immemorial. Braying and boasting and bragging and pontificating and lecturing and accusing does not mean anything. Every guilty person does that. Saying it's so does NOT make it so. Ya know?

Posted - February 5, 2018
Tags : None

Responses


  • 1233
    In civilised societies, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The accused doesn't need to vindicate themselves or be vindicated. 

    If you can't see that, I hope you some day get accused of a crime you didn't commit. You need to look into the eyes of a prosecutor who knows you're innocent but doesn't care. It would give you some much needed perspective.







      February 5, 2018 2:52 AM MST
    4

  • Which is why I wish it were possible for everyone to spend time  in a courtroom watching criminal proceedings. It would be a revelation to those who think they understand the process but are truly naive. The law often runs contrary to what I think is fair, just or right. It's not about me or my feelings. Your point about the prosecutor is well taken, but let's not leave out his able adversary who must defend one whom he knows is guilty because all of us are entitled to legal representation. 
      February 5, 2018 6:14 AM MST
    0

  • 1233
    I believe everyone is entitled to a defence. I therefore think it's acceptable to defend someone you believe is guilty so long as you're not obstructing justice. There is a difference between appealing to the jury to consider the most charitable interpretation of the evidence and actively trying to deceive the jury. There is a difference between believing something and knowing something.

    Ultimately I believe it is worse for an innocent person to be convicted than a guilty person to go free. So I see malicious prosecution as worse than obstructing justice. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at February 5, 2018 12:17 PM MST
      February 5, 2018 10:08 AM MST
    2

  • 6098
    Well if you are tried by a "jury of your peers" then yes society is obliged to accept that decision. Which does not make it right or just.  Only God is the judge. Because if people don't like someone they try and wipe them out be heaping myriad accusations upon them.  Which actually end up saying more about the frustrated accusers than the accused.  Because of my position at work I have the target of some accusations over the years - all of which (some which were supposed to have happened years ago) had no factual basis.  Just as part of an attempt to discredit me and make me look bad.  Which would have succeeded had I not had the confidence of the higher-ups.  Don't know how good I would have been at "vindicating" myself but some people feel that if they don't then people will take advantage of them. 
      February 5, 2018 5:16 AM MST
    1

  • Saying it may not make it so, but the court is the determiner of truth, not those who want a witch hunt wrapped in all the proper trappings of due process.
      February 5, 2018 6:19 AM MST
    0