hakuman wrote:And "innocent till proven guilty" is just how the system is based. What it means is that the onus is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence. In this case, the state didnt prove guilt. No one proved innocence.
Did I miss something? Or am I just plain fucked?!
If you are considered "innocent" when entering a trial and the state has failed to "prove you guilty" upon completion of the trial wouldn't you therefore remain innocent? Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Isn't that how it works?
S