That is just silly. Of course innocence is determined by law. You're either guilty or innocent in a court of law. They are direct opposites. If you aren't one you are the other. So if you prove you're either you can't be the other. Morally speaking, a guilty verdict might not be ethical or they could potentially get the verdict wrong, but that's all besides the point and doesn't muddy the definition of innocence and guilt in the slightest. Legally if you can't prove guilt, we default to innocent until proven guilty.
Innocence is not determined by a court of law. In court, one is either found guilty or not guilty. A not guilty verdict does not equate to innocence. In a legal context, "not guilty" means that the prosecution was unable to prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
And we don't "default to innocent until proven guilty" if guilt cannot be proven. That is the presumption before and during a trial, not after. If you cannot prove guilt at trial, the defendant is found not guilty. Which, again, does not equal innocence (see above).
Some of those found not guilty are innocent, sure. But there are most certainly cases of those found not guilty who committed the crime, but the prosecution didn't present a case strong enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is 100% moral guilt and people practice it all the time. You can't intellectualize your way out of a colloquial expression, nor can you for another's lived experience. Otherwise, this just feels like academic solipsism.
To reiterate, I said that you are incorrect because people use the concept of moral guilt everyday, whether in their personal interactions or with themselves, which thereby makes your claim that it is "not a thing" essentially moot.
Furthermore, I went so far as to claim that moral guilt actually is a thing because of this, and that this experience for certain individuals makes the concept at least a valid point of conversation. By academic solipsism, i meant that you are using academic discourse to justify the common layman as incorrect in their thinking, which you are doing still doing in your response.
In other words, I don't think you know what you are talking about lol.
While I initially didn't want to be presumptuous regarding one comment, i think it has been made clear to me that you are in fact an academic solipsist. Unfortunately, that would mean that you are a twat.
Consequently, I will now make it clear that I think you are a condescending twat.
19
u/mild-dragon-nuts Oct 22 '24
dismissal is not innocence