Gram? Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Legal innocence is very different from actual innocence. We in the west by and large afford obviously guilty people a trial before punishment(not always - see under what's left of bin Ladins head). However that does not mean that we the public have to wander round pretending the guilty are innocent until the trial. Mladic is guilty as sin and i'm not going to wait for endless well paid clever men to argue over the minutiae of international law to point out that fact. Not true...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not true...... Of course there's a difference between legal guilt and actual guilt. If someone commits a murder and are never arrested and brought before a court, they're not legally guilty. They're still guilty though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not true...... So Fred West, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and as andikay pointed out Raoul Moat are all innocent men in your view having never actually been found guilty by a jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not true...... So do you believe that Stalin, Hitler and Bin Laden are not guilty of any crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gram? Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not convicted, he's not yet a criminal. FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not convicted, he's not yet a criminal. FACT. A criminal is a person who has committed a crime, they don’t have to have been convicted to have committed the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Unless you've presided over a massacre of 7,500 civilians then i would say he a lot more of a criminal than you are as it stands. A criminal is a criminal, he's not a convicted criminal yet but just the same as a burglar who has yet tobe convicted is a criminal Mladic is a criminal of a particularly horendous sort. Yes, indeed, just the same as an alleged burglar who has yet to be convicted, he is innocent. He remains so unless, and until, a conviction is secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad of 2 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 At last, someone must want Serbia in the EU. Ratko Mladic, wanted for the Srebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslims, is arrested in Serbia and moves to extradite him to The Hague tribunal begin. BBC News Your first comment is half right, but for that no less valid. The other half of the reason this subhuman ratio mladic was not hung in the street years ago was to prevent another war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Legal innocence is very different from actual innocence. We in the west by and large afford obviously guilty people a trial before punishment(not always - see under what's left of bin Ladins head). However that does not mean that we the public have to wander round pretending the guilty are innocent until the trial. That is, in fact, exactly what it does mean. Indeed that's the whole of having a law of innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Not convicted, he's not yet a criminal. FACT. By commiting his crimes he became a criminal, if he doesn'tkill himself before trial he will become a convicted criminal. Which bit of committing crimes makes you a criminal don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.