PDA

View Full Version : What happened to INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY?



3arod13
12-20-2007, 05:00 AM
What happened to INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY? It amazes me how someone can throw a name out there...accuse someone of something..and then that individual has to defend themselves.

Just like some of the recent threads accusing Arod of using. Other than Jose Canseco's big mouth, what else is there? Nothing factual.

If factual information and/or proof is established, then yes, the individual should have to speak up to defend themselves.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AkcqyuP8trEWsGk6nW._u14RvLYF?slug=ap-clemens-schilling&prov=ap&type=lgns

By the way, it's now time to let Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame!!

mvandor
12-20-2007, 10:09 AM
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle that has ZERO to do with the court of public opinion. Hell, OJ got off but who doesn't believe he DID IT?

You're free to stand in denial, however I see no reason for sources in that book to lie. And Canseco's assertions are turning out to be very accurate as time goes by. I'd say he's gaining credibility with each new nail in the coffin.

I respect George Mitchell and do not believe he'd participate in speculative character assassination. I have yet to read the report, but the snippets in the media are pretty well supported.

3arod13
12-20-2007, 10:21 AM
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle that has ZERO to do with the court of public opinion. Hell, OJ got off but who doesn't believe he DID IT?

You're free to stand in denial, however I see no reason for sources in that book to lie. And Canseco's assertions are turning out to be very accurate as time goes by. I'd say he's gaining credibility with each new nail in the coffin.

I respect George Mitchell and do not believe he'd participate in speculative character assassination. I have yet to read the report, but the snippets in the media are pretty well supported.

Agree. However, there was pretty good solid evidence against OJ, however, the good ole legal system and the lawyers left him off the hook.

Maybe I missed something. The only thing I have heard about Arod juicing was Canseco stating wait for his next book to come out, as Arod will be in it; and that Canseco said he couldn't believe Arod's name wasn't mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Other than that, what else was there?

Again, I have never defended Arod. I just haven't seen anything that proves it.

Do I believe that Arod 100% didn't juice? Of course not.

David
12-20-2007, 02:53 PM
The full phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Also realize there is no possible possible legal penalty for Clemens, McGwire, etc in the court of pubic opinion or in the opinions of Hall of Fame voters. In law, the level of proof of guilt is tied to possible sentence. The required level of proof is lower in civil court than in criminal court, specifically because a civil court can't sentence anyone to jail or prison. In criminal court, where you can go to prison, the required proof of guilt is higher. In the court of public opinion or Hall of Fame voters, there is no possible legal penalty.

If public opinion was to mimic a court of criminal law, that means the public would have the power to punish the accused, including being sent to jail. Presumably, many ball players wouldn't be interested in public opinion mimicking a court of law that closely.

David
12-20-2007, 03:18 PM
When a player proclaims he wants criminal court room requirements for evidence and proof, ask him if that means he wants the debate to take place in a criminal court room, as that's where you get criminal case rules for evidence. About no player (and his lawyers) will be interested in moving the debate to a criminal court to get those beloved criminal court rules for evidence and proof.

byergo
12-21-2007, 06:32 PM
Canseco's word carries tremendous crediblity and weight regarding the steroids topic. He is probably the one person you can most trust regarding this issue in the public discussion. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as just a "big mouth."

Jose, more than any other party is responsible for blowing this story open. Without him, we wouldn't know what we now know, so we owe him a debt of gratitude for that.

Point blank, AROD is extremely rich and can easily afford All Star caliber legal representation with what amounts to pocket change to him. If Jose is lying sue him for slander--PERIOD! Now ask yourself, why doesn't AROD do this? Hmmm.....

3arod13
12-21-2007, 06:39 PM
Canseco's word carries tremendous crediblity and weight regarding the steroids topic. He is probably the one person you can most trust regarding this issue in the public discussion. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as just a "big mouth."

Jose, more than any other party is responsible for blowing this story open. Without him, we wouldn't know what we now know, so we owe him a debt of gratitude for that.

Point blank, AROD is extremely rich and can easily afford All Star caliber legal representation with what amounts to pocket change to him. If Jose is lying sue him for slander--PERIOD! Now ask yourself, why doesn't AROD do this? Hmmm.....

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

whatupyos
12-21-2007, 06:51 PM
AROD-

Dude, I agree with what happend to Innocent Until Proven Guilty. But, we live in a society where people judge all the time. I'm trying to get away from that myself. Its not polite to judge when you don't know someone, or the whole story or whatever the case may be. So to you I say, stick by your boy! If you're an AROD fan, stick by him, like with all the Canseco fans who stick up for him, I'm not personally a Canseco fan but I respect the people who stick up for him as well. We're not going to agree with every point in life so whats the point on judging. Don't sell your stuff either. A true fan would never sell anything from their favorite player, whether it goes up in value or not.

Aaron

3arod13
12-21-2007, 08:04 PM
AROD-

Dude, I agree with what happend to Innocent Until Proven Guilty. But, we live in a society where people judge all the time. I'm trying to get away from that myself. Its not polite to judge when you don't know someone, or the whole story or whatever the case may be. So to you I say, stick by your boy! If you're an AROD fan, stick by him, like with all the Canseco fans who stick up for him, I'm not personally a Canseco fan but I respect the people who stick up for him as well. We're not going to agree with every point in life so whats the point on judging. Don't sell your stuff either. A true fan would never sell anything from their favorite player, whether it goes up in value or not.

Aaron

I guess as a Legal Officer in Navy for the past 25 years, I more concerned about facts than accusations.

I ask this question: Other than Canseco making comments about Arod, which by the way weren't even specific or detailed, what has arod specifically been accused of doing? Maybe I don't watch enough sportscenter and missed something.

kellsox
12-21-2007, 09:20 PM
Canseco has said nothing specific about Arod other than he will have details in his next book due out in 08. He has been on Boston radio on the weekends and from the way he is talking it sounds like the book is pretty well along.
k

David
12-21-2007, 10:51 PM
Duly note that if you sue someone for slander knowing that your case is baseless (i.e. you sue someone for saying something that you knew was true), the person you are suing could bring a slander case against you and win.

Oscar Wilde famously sued someone for slander and Wilde ended up doing hard labor. A slander case Wilde regretting bringing up.

David
12-21-2007, 11:09 PM
Calling someone a liar when you know he is not could be considered slander.

If a player did use steroids or HGH, he should be careful how he protests his innocence. If the player wrongly and knowingly calls a trainer a liar, it is conceivable the trainer could sue the player for slander.

If a player did use banned drugs, it would be ill advised to bring a slander case.

David
12-21-2007, 11:42 PM
The players and their union preventing drug testing has come to bite them on the butt. Lack of past tests is a double edge sword for players. The lack of testing provides no evidence of guilt, but it also provides no evidence of innocence.

A player can say "I never failed a drug test" back when there was no testing. And a fan can reply, "You also never passed a drug test."

If players protest public opinion based on lack of information, it was the players and players union that created this lack of information, so they are at least partially responsible for this situation.

David
12-22-2007, 03:58 PM
As many want to use legal rules concerning public opinion and ball players, I wanted to add one important thing about 'guilt' and 'innocence' in a court of law.

In a court of law, someone is not found either "guilty" or "innocent." They are found "guilty" or "not guilty." A significant difference, as "not guilty" does not automatically equate with "innocent."

The US law system is more concerned most with preventing the innocent from going to prison, not all guilty going to prison-- and, because of this, knowingly allows people who "did it" to go free. If you ask any US Supreme Court Justice if the US legal system allows people who "did it" to walk free, he or she will say "Of Course." In this, once could say the legal system is more concerned with "justice" than "truth," as a decision can be both legally fair but factually incorrect.

So a baseball fan can use US Legal rules to try and show a player has not been shown guilty. However, he can't use them to prove innocence.

This can be compared to the previous post where the players and unions prevented drug testing. It's true that the lack of tests isn't isn't proof of guilt. However, the lack of test results also isn't proof of innocence. If fact, with a lack of test results for evidence many fans and sportwriters may turn to the quetion of 'Why did the players and their union wish to prevent all drug tests?"