Daily Archives: December 19, 2010

Innocence Is As Innocence Does

Maybe I should turn these “is/does” titles into a series.

Anyway, an interesting tidbit via Grits-for-Breakfast about an upcoming law review article taking issue with the “innocence movement’s” “binary” approach to factual and legal innocence.  The article will apparently find fault with this because “legal innocence” should not be differentiated from “factual innocence”.

Keep in mind that this is a law review article.  Law review articles are a peculiar form of mental masturbation, seemingly having as their sole purpose the complication of simple things.

“Legal innocence” is predicated upon the “presumption of innocence”, a hallowed myth of the Anglo-American criminal justice system.  The phrase does not appear in the constitution, but it’s regularly bandied about at criminal trials, where juries are instructed about it.

It’s like a lot of things juries are instructed about.  They often don’t believe what they’re told, and neither does anyone else, and no one expects them to.  The “presumption of innocence” is certainly one such, a pious bromide that we use to pat ourselves on the back for our supposed fairness.  In fact, the accused is presumed by everyone to be guilty.  Everyone knows this.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Judicial lying/cheating

Most Viewed Posts This Week

 

1.  God Punishes Minneapolis for Jailing Joel Rosenberg

2.  Free Joel Rosenberg?  Maybe Minneapolis Lawyers Should Strike (Update)

3.  Money II

4.  Money

5.  Money III

Personally, I thought “Money II” was the best of the group, but the Joel Rosenberg supporters sure did like the idea of prompt divine retribution against the municipality of Minneapolis.  Unfortunately, I cannot claim any explicit divine revelation about that.  It was simply a logical deduction.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized