Ball-Tampering Hearing

[GIMH]

Oh, really?

Fair enough. Maybe it's somewhere else, or the law changed. I was informed of that by my old Law teacher, and you have showed me to be incorrect, so I stand corrected. Doesn't really change anything though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What they should do is build 10,000 multi-storey prisons on wasteland and lock everyone up until they can prove that they're innocent of any crime.

 

[nightprowler10]

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"

Police arrest people on suspicion. The suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Don't you ever watch L&O

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough. Maybe it's somewhere else, or the law changed. I was informed of that by my old Law teacher, and you have showed me to be incorrect, so I stand corrected. Doesn't really change anything though.

No, you are innocent, until proven guilty. Hence, unless you are proven guilty, then your status as 'innocent' stands. The defense never has to prove anything, the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution and it is up to them to prove you are not innocent.

 

[GIMH]

Haha I do actually

Anyway, to be fair my intention was never to dismiss the innocent until proven guilty issue, it was to say that the verdict Not Guilty does not equate to a verdict of Innocent. LOL.

 

[GIMH]

No, you are innocent, until proven guilty. Hence, unless you are proven guilty, then your status as 'innocent' stands. The defense never has to prove anything, the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution and it is up to them to prove you are not innocent.

Not Guilty = not found guilty

Innocent = no such verdict

 

[silentstriker]

Haha I do actually

Anyway, to be fair my intention was never to dismiss the innocent until proven guilty issue, it was to say that the verdict Not Guilty does not equate to a verdict of Innocent. LOL.

There is no such thing as a verdict of innocence, thats the thing. You are innocent, unless you are proven guilty.

 

[GIMH]

There is no such thing as a verdict of innocence, thats the thing. You are innocent, unless you are proven guilty.

Yes, because the Court's job is to establish whether somebody is definitely guilty. If they are not definitely, or I should say guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then they won't convict them, it does not mean they have found them innocent!!!

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, because the Court's job is to establish whether somebody is definitely guilty. If they are not definitely, or I should say guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then they won't convict them, it does not mean they have found them innocent!!!

It cannot find them innocent. Because they are innocent, unless the prosecution has proved otherwise.

 

[GIMH]

Rubbish and you know it, all not guilty means is that you have not been proven guilty, which was Scaly's point, and I agreed with him. Quote your innocent til proven guilty til the cows come home, the fact is that being found not guilty does not make you innocent. You'll never agree with me on this, but it's quite simple, if Not Guilty meant innocent, then they'd call it Innocent, there's absolutely no reason why not.

 

[Matt79]

I think that the issue is the difference between proving to a court of law (or ICC hearing in this case) that reasonable doubt as to your guilt exists, and persuading people in general that you're innocent. As has been mentioned, sometimes this is the same thing, ie irrefutable alibi who proves you couldn't have done it. Other times its more grey than black and white.

In this case, there was damage to the ball. The hearing concluded that it could not be certain that the damage had been deliberately inflicted by member or members of the Pakistani team. As such reasonable doubt existed, and they properly found Inzi (and the Pakistani team) "not guilty". They DID NOT say that Pakistan definately DID NOT tamper with the ball, they just said that the available evidence did not make a sufficiently persuasive case for them to find they HAD tampered with it. I can't think how to explain this more simply.

So, Pakistan were found not guilty and therefore received no punishment, and cannot be said to have been found to have cheated. Practically it is an identical result to saying they were found innocent. But you'd have to be seeing the ruling though a biased point of view to think that it said that Hair had no basis for making the allegation, or that it questioned Hair's integrity in making the allegation.

It found there WAS damage to the ball. If policemen were thrown out of the force everytime a charge they brought was unsuccessful, we'd have no police left.

 

[Matt79]

There is no such thing as a verdict of innocence, thats the thing. You are innocent, unless you are proven guilty.

You are innocent in the eyes of the law. This is often, but not always, the same thing as truly innocent. Remember that precept has the co-principle, "it is better that 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man hang".

 

[Matt79]

BTW, I'm not saying I think Pakistan DID tamper with the ball, I'm just saying that the ruling didn't say "Pakistan are as pure and blameless as the newly fallen snow". That wasn't the question they were ruling on.

 

[GIMH]

I think that the issue is the difference between proving to a court of law (or ICC hearing in this case) that reasonable doubt as to your guilt exists, and persuading people in general that you're innocent. As has been mentioned, sometimes this is the same thing, ie irrefutable alibi who proves you couldn't have done it. Other times its more grey than black and white.

In this case, there was damage to the ball. The hearing concluded that it could not be certain that the damage had been deliberately inflicted by member or members of the Pakistani team. As such reasonable doubt existed, and they properly found Inzi (and the Pakistani team) "not guilty". They DID NOT say that Pakistan definately DID NOT tamper with the ball, they just said that the available evidence did not make a sufficiently persuasive case for them to find they HAD tampered with it. I can't think how to explain this more simply.

So, Pakistan were found not guilty and therefore received no punishment, and cannot be said to have been found to have cheated. Practically it is an identical result to saying they were found innocent. But you'd have to be seeing the ruling though a biased point of view to think that it said that Hair had no basis for making the allegation, or that it questioned Hair's integrity in making the allegation.

It found there WAS damage to the ball. If policemen were thrown out of the force everytime a charge they brought was unsuccessful, we'd have no police left.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You are innocent in the eyes of the law.

It's those "eyes of the law" that cause all the confusion. We all know that if those eyes went to Spec Savers they would have cataracts and at least one detached retina.

 

[Matt79]

The law is an ***!

EDIT: "The law is a donkey" just doesn't have the same ring to it

 

[Anil]

Aaaah, I stated that Benaud is "POSSIBLY" the most respected man in world cricket (sue me: he only reached the Final Four) and Benaud himself rejects the notion of it being a whitewash

"A It is not a whitewash. But the outcome is close to what I expected."

I assume you mis-read the article as I'd hate to think you were biased

you would, wouldn't you now...

..and i don't care how you quibble with words....whatever benaud exactly said, the tone of the interview was pretty clear....by the way can you even let me know what that means "It is not a whitewash. But the outcome is close to what I expected." ...he is clearly saying that he expected everything to go in favour of pakistan and he made it clear that he completely disapproved of that....

 

[Fusion]

Rubbish and you know it, all not guilty means is that you have not been proven guilty, which was Scaly's point, and I agreed with him. Quote your innocent til proven guilty til the cows come home, the fact is that being found not guilty does not make you innocent. You'll never agree with me on this, but it's quite simple, if Not Guilty meant innocent, then they'd call it Innocent, there's absolutely no reason why not.

And you can quote your "not guilty does not mean innocent" until the cows come home, but you're still wrong. As SS pointed out, there is no "innocent" verdict because you're presumed to be innocent until found guilty!! It's ridiculous for you to keep disputing that fact. Even in the case of OJ, the law considers him innocent, hence he's not in prison!
I will say once again, if "not guilty" merely meant "we don’t have enough to convict you", the whole legal system would be a farce. INNOCENT people are accused of crimes all the time. You're telling me that there's no way they can ever be found innocent by a court of law???? That's utter rubbish.

 

[Matt79]

And you can quote your "not guilty does not mean innocent" until the cows come home, but you're still wrong. As SS pointed out, there is no "innocent" verdict because you're presumed to be innocent until found guilty!! It's ridiculous for you to keep disputing that fact. Even in the case of OJ, the law considers him innocent, hence he's not in prison!
I will say once again, if "not guilty" merely meant "we don’t have enough to convict you", the whole legal system would be a farce. INNOCENT people are accused of crimes all the time. You're telling me that there's no way they can ever be found innocent by a court of law???? That's utter rubbish.

But that is what we are telling you. A court never finds someone 'innocent' - it decides whether there is sufficient evidence of guilt or not. Sometimes a person's innocence is conclusively demonstrated in the process, but that's a means, not an end.

 

[GIMH]

And you can quote your "not guilty does not mean innocent" until the cows come home, but you're still wrong. As SS pointed out, there is no "innocent" verdict because you're presumed to be innocent until found guilty!! It's ridiculous for you to keep disputing that fact. Even in the case of OJ, the law considers him innocent, hence he's not in prison!
I will say once again, if "not guilty" merely meant "we don’t have enough to convict you", the whole legal system would be a farce. INNOCENT people are accused of crimes all the time. You're telling me that there's no way they can ever be found innocent by a court of law???? That's utter rubbish.

I'm not wrong, and I've quoted the defintion of Not Guilty in legal terms. The purpose of a Court of Law is to establish whether there is enough evidence to convict somebody : the fact that there is not enoguh evidence keeps them out of prison, because it would be unjust to lock up a man without sufficient proof, that does not mean they are innocent, and nor does it mean that the Court belives them to be so.

It's not a difficult concept, I don't understand why you can't follow.