Can you quote one person saying he's guilty anyway?
Or do you mean the Twitter thread?
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
Can you quote one person saying he's guilty anyway?
Or do you mean the Twitter thread?
No they are not, the reciprocal isn't true. While innocent is not guilty, not guilty isn't innocent.
In a dictionary sense maybe, in a legal sense no. It's just more complicated than that unfortunately.
Not legally because a court never proves innocence, it proves guilt or fails to prove guilt it's actually horrible to think Mendy can never be proven innocent.
I agree with the first half of that.
However, as for the second half, I don't think (m)any on here are really saying that a person must definitely be 100% innocent if they're found 'not guilty'. Everyone is aware of the burden of proof, miscarriages of justices (both ways), etc.
I think most are just responding to the initial reaction of some that implies, if not states, things along the line of 'another rich guy gets away with it', 'there's no smoke without fire', etc.
That's the kind of Trial By Media / Court of Public Opinion stuff that is very unfair. If the court - who had all the evidence to examine - failed to find / prove the person guilty, then that should be the end of it unless the court re-tries them. People still saying / implying 'they couldn't prove them guilty, but they're still probably guilty of it' - and that stigma following them around, with the not guilty verdict coming with an asterisk, is where I think the big issue lies with some, and why they say the person shouldn't still be treated and talked about as if they were probably guilty and just got away with it when no-one actually knows that.
No, though in theory if someone has falsely accused him of rape they could themselves be found guilty of such in a separate trial. Which in real terms would lend more weight to his claims of innocence than a not guilty verdict in his own trial does.
Unfortunately it most likely just falls into the vast grey area where he can't prove he is innocent and they can't prove they weren't lying.
Good lord Memphis needs to work on his grammar. His, not he’s Memph. It doesn’t make any sense
Makes sense. Just kinda feels unresolved to me for lack of a better word.
He's clearly not being very grammatically Responsable.
Exactlee. His Inglish iz apoorling.
Yeah I get you, I would say that's very fair, but a bit unrealistic in practice.
The issue is the extremes tbh, which is always the case. People taking either opinion too far or presenting thoughts and opinion as facts will always annoy everyone on the otherside and then all reasonable discussion dies.
I also draw a big distinction between trial by media and court of public opinion.
You are allowed your opinion, it should just come after some facts are actually known and always with caveats like 'thats my opinion'.
Media spin and coverage and the presentation of facts as they want them just makes it harder for public opinion to be in anyway worthwhile.
I feel like this about our own accused player - more so even that it never went to trial. Would have at least had closure and a clear direction. Good luck to Mendy in trying to resurrect his career.
It must be because he's communicating true Twitter.
Who said that?
If anything, it shows a complete lack of reading comprehension in some.
Yeah, I think that's very fair as well.
I thought he done considering the number of allegations, people don't beat 8 charges everyday. He needs help, you can't have that many women complain about you for no reason.
It doesn't stand completely to reason - not legal reasoning at least.
You're right in the sense that Courts don't deal in absolutes. The standard in a case like this is an assessment of fact beyond a reasonable doubt - which means you can entertain some doubt over an accused person's innocence and still find them not guilty.
That said, in the eyes of the law, an accused person does not bear the burden of the prosecution failing to prove their case. It's that simple. The accused person deserves the right to move on with their life if the evidence is not convincing to a jury.
Another thing to note as to why a finding that an accused person is not guilty would not necessarily translate into open and shut cases against their accusers is the fact that every crime has specific elements other than the commission of the wrongful act itself. Just the mere fact of having committed an unlawful act - like wrongly prosecuting an innocent person may or may not lead to a conviction because you would also need to find that the act was done in malice.
In the specific instance here, I've read that this is a retrial. That means two separate juries have been unable to find him guilty, with the expectation now being that there will be no further retrial. Essentially, you can't charge him with these offences anymore - the Courts will not entertain them unless something so fundamental changes like the existence of video footage.
That is as close to a definite status of innocence as one can get legally
I think the litmus test as to whether he is innocent or “got away” with it is going to be whether the those that made the allegations face criminal charges.
There's absolutely no difference.
Guilty means you did it. Not guilty means you didn't do it.
Innocent until proven guilty is the law. Therefore not proven guilty would mean one is innocent. Innocence is the default state of every accused and the only thing that can change this is a guilty verdict.
That's not correct. "Not guilty" and "innocent" explicitly mean different things in a legal context and a presumption of innocence isn't the same as a finding of innocence.
What would give you that impression? You're already presumed innocent by Court from the moment you walk in. You may be the one on the stand but in reality, it is the prosecution who has a case to prove.
Point me to your source.
Edit:
Would be interesting to see how a presumption of innocence suddenly goes away after a not guilty verdict.
I think that is extremmmmely unlikely but also I don't think it offers any further inference on Mendy's behalf beyond the reported inconsistencies lending more toward his innocence in those specific complaints.
I don't have a source, it's a basic fact of how the law works.
You are presumed to be innocent. If the court fail to prove you are guilty, you keep that legal presumption of innocence. But that presumption of innocence isn't the same as a finding of innocence, as might occur in some systems via an appeals process where the court determines that you are in fact innocent.
All a not guilty verdict means is that the jury fell somewhere between "we are certain he is innocent" and "we are almost certain he is guilty". Which, clearly, isn't the same as them determining he is innocent.
If you're sleeping with 10 thousand women due to your fame you are gonna sleep with so many bad women it's unreal.
He's been cleared on evidence, they were searching his wealth etc...
Maybe he can start his career again in Saudi.
He's been cleared on evidence, they were searching his wealth etc...
Maybe he can start his career again in Saudi.
No. Not guilty either means that it has been determined that you didn't commit the actions you are accused of or that it was not possible to determine to a reasonable degree that you committed them.
Also the presumption of innocence doesn't mean that you are considered innocent, it means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Said prosecution presumes that you are guilty.
Look, if you have the protection of a presumption of innocence, you are by definition, innocent - until proven guilty. If you are not proven guilty and never stopped being presumptively innocent, then a not guilty verdict means/implies you are innocent even if those words are not used.
These are ordinary English words with no special legal meaning. But if you know of special legal meanings, do share your sources.
It's being proposed but there's a lot of opposition so there's no guarantee that it will happen, especially if other parts of the proposal, like scrapping juries for a number of trials are carried forward
They don't care, and public ones like this have been happening for a very very long time. Look up the Roscoe Arbuckle case from the 1920s, he was proven categorically proven innocent and his hollywood career was still ruined.
1. Got a source?
2. The presumption of innocence literally does mean you are considered innocent. It is the bedrock of the English legal system and the reason we have things like bail. Of course, the prosecution would consider you guilty but it is not the prosecution that is obliged to presume you innocent. It is the Court that must do so - and in doing so, must not stop to do so until it finds that the prosecution has proven its case. Where the prosecution has not proven its case, it is obvious, then, that in the eyes of the Court, you are innocent.
A lot of men kill themselves just over the false accusation let alone this treatment.
Again, that just isn't correct.
Here's one explanation of why the words "innocent" and "not guilty" mean different things in a legal context. But if you just type "difference between innocent and not guilty" into google you'll see thousands more. It isn't some obscure legal technicality, it's a basic principle of how the law works.
So by forgetting to get consent you mean he forget to get her to say on video that she gave consent? I mean, it's actually very smart from his agents and minders. Especially in this day and age where your life can be ruined simply by a woman deciding to retroactively withdraw consent AFTER having consensual sex, or when an accusation will be made publicly whether you did it or not first, before going to the police, if it ever does anyway. But it is sad that this is what a lot of famous and rich men resort to.
The law nearly everywhere, I forgot to mention one case which is mental illness.
It is honestly so basic in legal terms you will not find many good sources, maybe an introductory legal textbook?
A quick Google search gives tonnes of explanations from US, UK and Aus all explaining it similarly.
You are completely wrong, trust me.
I can see what you mean, but the guilty/not guilty approach (that the court is not tasked 99% of the time with either proving or inferring innocence) and the presumption of innocence are not mutually exclusive as you are arguing.
If folks here don't believe in a non-guilty verdict what chance do folks who have actually served time for crimes they have committed have for rehabilitation in today's society. No wonder incarceration numbers are what they are in the US.
What about the extra evidence that came to light?
It would very much depend on the context.
There was a case in Norway a few years back. A woman filed a police report alleging that she'd been gang raped. They had the cab driver who took her and the men from a bar to the men's lodge testifying that the woman was completely insensate, and a toxicology report stating she had potentially lethal levels of GHB in her blood. Expert witness testified that it would be impossible for someone with that much GHB in their system to give any kind of informed consent. However, the men have filmed parts of the intercourse, and from the video it would seem that she was, at least to some extent, actively participating in the intercourse. The men were found not guilty. The case was appealed, and again they were found not guilty. Despite the fact that any functioning human being can see that, at best, they took advantage of a woman tripping of a lethal dose of a common date rape drug (that they gave her, though it was her word against theirs with regards to whether they slipped it to her or offered it to her.)
You're presumed innocent, yes, you're not found innocent. So on the basis that they could not prove your guilt, you are, in the eyes of the law, presumed to be innocent. That's not the same as saying "the person is innocent of the crime."
What if a person is found not guilty, but is then ordered by a civil court to pay damages for the crime they were found not guilty of. Should we still presume them innocent? Isn't it terribly unfair for someone to be ordered to pay damages for a crime they're presumed innocent of committing?