Ball-Tampering Hearing

[GIMH]

not guilty
n. 1) plea of a person who claims not to have committed the crime of which he/she is accused, made in court when arraigned (first brought before a judge) or at a later time set by the court. The choices of what one can plea are: guilty, not guilty, no contest, not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial. 2) verdict after trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of 12 jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed. The accused cannot be tried again for the crime charged.

Note that it does not say anything about the jury finding the defendant to be innocent.

 

[GIMH]

The law states "innocent until proven guilty". If you're not proven guilty, you are innocent in the eyes of the law. How much simpler could it possibly get.

It doesn't matter if people think or know OJ is guilty, he is still innocent in the eyes of the law.

Innocent until proven guilty is a load of nonsense anyway, it makes no difference whether you live in a country which operates that, or if you live in France where they operate Guilty until prove innocent, because all suspects are investigated until they can be cleared. When police interview people, they don't say to them "well obviously you didn't do it until we prove that you did" they say "You killed her because she wasn't putting out anymore! You did, didn't you?!"

The eyes of the law say that if you're found not guilty, you don't go to jail, not that you're innocent. Or in Inzy's case, that there was no proof he tampered with the ball, not that he absolutely 100% certainly didn't. That's it from me on this now (unless someone says something that I can't resist replying to).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Unfortunately it's the age old round and round in circles argument. If someone is "innocent until proven guilty" how come there are up to 70,000 "innocent" people in prison awaiting trial in the Uk?
If someone is found "Not Guilty" they have not been proven to be Innocent, however once the trial is over they become "Innocent in the eyes of the law".

 

[Dasa]

Why be so concerned with this guilty/innocent stuff unless you think the Pakistanis were guilty and got off easy?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why are you so concerned with his innocent or guilty stuff? Do you think the Pakistanis actually did tamper with the ball and got off easy or something?

I'm past caring whether they did or not.

I think I'll just stick in one of these beauties.

 

[GIMH]

Well, can't remember exactly what set me off, but I think someone called Scaly stupid for saying that Pakistan hadn't been proven innocent, which is correct, and from there I got myself going. And being typed at in caps, like I'm stupid, just wound me up - I'm not saying I'm superior to anyone or anything, but I know what I'm talking about nad have actually studied Law enough to understand basic principles of it.

 

[Dasa]

Well, can't remember exactly what set me off, but I think someone called Scaly stupid for saying that Pakistan hadn't been proven innocent, which is correct, and from there I got myself going. And being typed at in caps, like I'm stupid, just wound me up - I'm not saying I'm superior to anyone or anything, but I know what I'm talking about nad have actually studied Law enough to understand basic principles of it.

Well as I recall people called Scaly stupid for suggesting the ICC bowed to political pressure and suggesting the ball used at the hearing was a different one to the actual match ball.

 

[marc71178]

...but he's clearly being selective in his criticism with comments like "and the Test would have continued if Pakistan had resumed play" when Hair had just as large a part in that as did the Pakistanis.

Oh yes, I remember Hair sat in his dressing room immediately after the tea interval when Inzy and co were on the field waiting to play.

 

[marc71178]

because the ball was out of shape. And no one was sure how it had gone out of shape and because one cannot act on speculation.

But it wasn't out of shape was it, it had scratches on but was still a ball shape.

 

[marc71178]

It feels stranger that those "one or two"marks would have actually helped the ball reverse swing like banana and would, in any way, benefit the bowling side.

I think it was more than just 1 or 2 though, although even 2 in the same spot would be about as likely as winning the lottery.

 

[GIMH]

Well as I recall people called Scaly stupid for suggesting the ICC bowed to political pressure and suggesting the ball used at the hearing was a different one to the actual match ball.

Yeha, that happened as well

 

[GIMH]

By the way with regards to comments like this:

"Pakistan who have just been spitefully wrongly charged with Cheating"

They were found not guilty, they were not found or proven to be innocent of the charge which you seem to be taking for granted.

Hey genius, being found "not guilty" means by definition that you're innocent of the charges!!! That's what "being found not guilty" has meant for centuries. But of course since in this case the "innocent" party was Pakistan, you want to change the definition itself. Pathetic.

Others may have commented as well. I wasn't defending Scaly as such, but what he said was right, and what Fusion said was wrong, so I commented, and from there, I kinda ran with it

 

[Jono]

To be fair, the only way they could ever be proven innocent is for something or someone else, not Pakistani, to be proven guilty of doing it.

That, or prove they were actually not on the ground when it took place, which would be hard to muster up.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Under Scottish Law there are three possible verdicts.
1. Guilty
2. Not Guilty
3. Not Proven

Presumably if they're found Not Guilty then they must have proven their innocence. If the verdict is Not Proven it just means that they might have done it but there isn't enough evidence. For legal purposes the verdicts mean the same.
But would the Pakistan case be Number 2 or Number 3?

 

[GIMH]

Scotland is the only place I've heard of that operates that system, so otherwise Not Guilty basically means Not Proven. But note that even in Scotland, where they have a Not Proven verdict, they still use the term Not Guilty rather than Innocent.

 

[nightprowler10]

For those of you who may be interested, Innocent until proven guilty. The phrase isn't something a hippie thought up of.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For those of you who may be interested, Innocent until proven guilty. The phrase isn't something a hippie thought up of.

If you used Wikipedia in court to prove a point you would probably be declared insane and unfit to enter a plea.

 

[silentstriker]

Innocent until proven guilty is a load of nonsense anyway, it makes no difference whether you live in a country which operates that, or if you live in France where they operate Guilty until prove innocent,

Oh, really?

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.

 

[GIMH]

Innocent until proven guilty is a load of nonsense anyway, it makes no difference whether you live in a country which operates that, or if you live in France where they operate Guilty until prove innocent, because all suspects are investigated until they can be cleared. When police interview people, they don't say to them "well obviously you didn't do it until we prove that you did" they say "You killed her because she wasn't putting out anymore! You did, didn't you?!"

The eyes of the law say that if you're found not guilty, you don't go to jail, not that you're innocent. Or in Inzy's case, that there was no proof he tampered with the ball, not that he absolutely 100% certainly didn't. That's it from me on this now (unless someone says something that I can't resist replying to).

Sorry, couldn't be bothered to write it out again. It's merely a saying. Police arrest people without proof, they don't arrest people and say, "You're nicked mate, but as things stand you're innocent"

 

[nightprowler10]

If you used Wikipedia in court to prove a point you would probably be declared insane and unfit to enter a plea.

There are several credible sites that make a mention of this in the law. Here's another example:

UN covenant on Civil and Political Rights