I was on such a jury. This guy beat the holy hell out of this other guy, but we did not award damages because they couldn't PROVE it...not beyond a reasonable doubt. Out system protect the innocent, and yes, it does allow guilty people to skate sometimes, but should anyone here ever be falsely accused (see falconhater) they'll be damned happy they're in an American court and not a Turkish one.

... don't believe the hype.

... and speaking of Turkish courts, personally, I've never been to one , and while it may be true that if you are accused of something you'd be damned happy you'd be tried in a US court, when someone does you wrong, and you are accusing someone who did something to you but somehow he gets off the hook on a technicality, then the Turkish court don't sound so bad

If that were the case - and nobody here can say intelligently one way or the other - then what does that say about the 'little lady' who accepted (so graciously) the check - you know, the one that filed the initial charges? Hmmmm....

er.. no. Being found not guilty does not mean the prosecutor was wrong, nor does it mean we "know" you are innocent. "Found not guiity as charged" is NOT just language. There is a whole bunch of legal reasons behind that specific language, but I don't think this is the forum to discuss this.

Not guilty does not mean we know you are innocent. Not guilty means the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

There have been trials where jury members have stated after the case that they believe a defendant committed the crime they were accused of, but the prosecution did not do a good enough job of overcoming the definition of reasonable doubt. Therefore they had to find not guilty (Tobias is right...they do not say you are innocent).

There have also been cases where a defendant was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on appeal because of mishandling or misrepresentation of evidence during the case. This can happen on a judge’s ruling and have nothing to do with a jury hearing the facts of a case. In neither one of these instances is the defendant innocent. But because of legal definitions they cannot be found guilty.

This also goes into why we have civil and criminal courts in our system. Civil courts do not have the same stringent requirements as criminal courts do. This is why a certain white bronco driving ex-NFL player was found not guilty in a legal trial, but in a civil trial was forced to pay millions in compensatory and punitive damages to the suvivors of two murder victims.

I was framed

hmmmmmmmmm. very true just like all the big wigs got where they are
lie cheat and steal, ala madoff, enron exec's k. lay and all the multi gonzillionaires. if anyone out of these thousands of people are cheat free
please mail my jack asap

I was on such a jury. This guy beat the holy hell out of this other guy, but we did not award damages because they couldn't PROVE it...not beyond a reasonable doubt. Out system protect the innocent, and yes, it does allow guilty people to skate sometimes, but should anyone here ever be falsely accused (see falconhater) they'll be damned happy they're in an American court and not a Turkish one.

the system works.....it has worked for years and thats why whenever there is a change, people make a big deal about it

now criminals who are serving life sentences can get out early.....the death penalty is being harrassed.....and even laws are being bent to persuade a judge/jury that a person is guilty until proven innocent

the fact is that there are very few instances where the guilty man walks free and the overwhelming majority of cases are correct because our judicial system is set up so perfectly

as this applies to this case......it doesnt matter what ben did or if he did anything because there wasnt any proof....so the blame falls back on the women who alleged the crime

even if ben made unwanted advances....he is innocent of the crime of rape

now criminals who are serving life sentences can get out early.....the death penalty is being harrassed.....and even laws are being bent to persuade a judge/jury that a person is guilty until proven innocent

the fact is that there are very few instances where the guilty man walks free and the overwhelming majority of cases are correct because our judicial system is set up so perfectly

as this applies to this case......it doesnt matter what ben did or if he did anything because there wasnt any proof....so the blame falls back on the women who alleged the crime

even if ben made unwanted advances....he is innocent of the crime of rape