I am going to stop, but before I do, I will just tell you this: language is everything in law. Semantics in law are a ***** . Presumption of innocence and not enough evidence to charge do not equate to being "innocent"..

i said, i believe ben did something......but i dont believe it was rape......he may have made unwanted advances and he may have forced himself on her but obviously there wasnt enough evidence....not blood....not DNA....not video.....not anything that says ben did anything significantly wrong to deserve the guilty sentence of rape

So anyone that says Ben 'did this' or 'did that' or that the DA didn't 'do this' or 'do that' because of 'this' or 'that' is working without any real evidence, and as the accused, Ben has the right, BY LAW, to be presumed innocent, and the burden of proof lies with those that make those assumptions.

Have you ever committed a crime? Probably. Are you in jail? Me neither.

And yes, the language is paramount, which is more or less my whole point.

Saintfan and Canton, I appreciate the dialogue. It is good when a hefty subject can be discussed without it degrading into name calling.

I believe you two have circled the argument back to the point I was making all along. First of all SF, Canton was the first to mention our perfect judicial system on post #67 with ” our judicial system is set up so perfectly”. I was playing off that because it obviously is not perfect.

But my point is basically the same one you are making; that one should not assume anything. In none of my posts have I said that he is guilty of anything. Really, go back and read. I never mentioning him raping, forcing himself, assaulting, or even insulting anyone. My whole point is to point out the mistake you two are saying. And that point is you two are assuming he is “innocent”. You have both used that term multiple times. So, since he was not charged with anything. And I did not say he did anything specific, what exactly are you two saying he is innocent of?



Ok, if Ben did something, as you admit, how can he be innocent? Again, I never said he raped anyone. I merely said to assume he did nothing wrong simply because no charges were filed is a mistake. You accuse me of bias, and you assume he is innocent and you assume I am saying he raped her. But I never did, so who is showing more bias?



Yet you are assuming that Ben didn’t do this or he didn’t do that because not enough criminal evidence exists. Fine, I agree if there is not enough evidence to bring to trial that there is reasonable doubt as to weather or not he sexually assaulted her. That is the definition of proving guilt or not in a court. No where is the term innocent used. Weather or not you want to admit it, if you ask any trial lawyer, they will say the fact that he was not charged with assault could mean anything from Ben did nothing wrong at all to he did a lot wrong and was so good at covering up his tracks that they could not prove he did wrong. That is the point I’m making. To assume he did nothing wrong and is innocent of any wrongdoing has no more basis in fact than saying he defenitely did rape her. You fall back on the point that he wasn’t charged and therfore you say he is innocent (again I ask of what since he was not charged). Yet to validate this point you ignore the fact that it has been shown before (once, a dozen or a hundred times, it really doesn’t matter) that the judicial system makes mistakes and that guilty people can go free and innocent people can go to prison.

You actually make the point for me Saintfan when you say:



Well there you go. If you committed a crime you are not innocent. And yet you are not in jail. So if you have committed a crime and not gone to jail, why are you so set against the possibility that Ben committed a crime and avoided jail as well? Instead, you just keep shouting he is innocent. I'll agree he should not go to jail based upon what the police have to go on. But that is a long way away from being able to claim he is an innocent man.




And if that is your point, you should realize that the term innocent is not part of the legal equation. In a court setting, the terms Guilty, Not Guilty, and reasonable doubts are the key ones. Innocent is for court movies.

In the eyes of the law, not enough evidence does equate to just that. What other brand can you put on a person? There is no 'purgatory' status. There is no "well, we all know he did it" status in law. I am presumed innocent, BY LAW, until proven otherwise, at which point I am guilty - or perhaps 'responsible' in the case of a civil trial.

So anyone that says Ben 'did this' or 'did that' or that the DA didn't 'do this' or 'do that' because of 'this' or 'that' is working without any real evidence, and as the accused, Ben has the right, BY LAW, to be presumed innocent, and the burden of proof lies with those that make those assumptions.

And yes, the language is paramount, which is more or less my whole point.