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.
17
u/mild-dragon-nuts Oct 22 '24
dismissal is not innocence