Re: This = That

Subject: Re: This = That
From: Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:57:57 MST

Since when is the questioning of word definition and usage a
"side trip" from technical writing? Gee, and I thought writing
was all about words...

Bev Parks
bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil

> Starting a political side trip, someone posted:

> If one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then in
> trial found to be not guilty, doesn't that make "not guilty"
> equal to "innocent"?

> The Scots have an interesting approach. The Jury has three choices to pick
> Guilty, Innocent, and Not Proven. (This last choice means that while the jury
> couldn't figure out if you were indeed innocent, the crown was not able to
> your guilt. The last two combined form the US's "Not Guilty" verdict. I think
> what the first poster was getting at is the belief that "Not Proven" is a long
> way from "Innocent." In the theory behind our society, we are supposed to
> that a "Not Guilty" verdict means "Innocent." The premise of an open and free
> society is that everyone is expected to be a good citizen, and no one must be
> hindered in any way without established proof. In our practice we are much
> than free and open; we tend to believe anyone -- or at least the majority --
> folks put on trial are guilty, regardless of proof, and therefore "Not Guilty"
> must mean they just got away with it, not that they were innocent. At root is
> the old back-fence standby, "there's no smoke without fire, I always say.")

> End of political side trip, back to Techwr business.

Previous by Author: This = That
Next by Author: Re: This = That
Previous by Thread: Re: This = That
Next by Thread: Re: This = That

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads