Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

7
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Trish
    Commented Feb 7 at 18:48
  • 3
    To clarify, do I understand correctly that when you say "whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime is a legal and objective fact", you are distinguishing whether the person in question is objectively guilty from whether they are guilty under the law as two separate facts? Commented Feb 7 at 21:13
  • 1
    @JohnBollinger, yes, they would be separate facts. I either did what I was accused of or I didn’t. (And if I did it there might be a valid excuse). So I am in layman’s terms guilty or innocent. And when the trial is over, it is declared that I am guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or not. That makes me legally guilty or not. We hope that people who are factually guilty will end up legally guilty, and those factually not guilty end up legally not guilty, but unfortunately that cannot be guaranteed.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Feb 7 at 22:33
  • 3
    Yes, @gnasher729, that is entirely my understanding. I just found this answer's wording a little confusing, and I wanted to make sure it was saying the same thing. Commented Feb 7 at 22:38
  • 1
    @JohnBollinger the wording legal fact was deliberately, because you might have killed John Doe in cold planned murder, but the jury found you innocent, then the legal fact is that you are innocent. And you are found guilty of having killed Jane Doe you never met, then it is a legal fact that you are guilty of her murder.
    – Trish
    Commented Feb 7 at 22:47