Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2023

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh... sorry where's the football thread?
Confused Pulp Fiction GIF
This is footy. Without community and inclusion, football is nothing.
 
Thanks for taking the time to talk that out, all really well put.

My own view is that whoever leaked the report to the media has some answering to do. There is nothing wrong with a truth-telling report until the results are published publicly before the accused parties have been involved. At that point it's a half-finished investigation that has done all of the damage without any of the healing.
Oh god, I've just seen that Jeff Kennett made the same point. I feel unclean.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

"Presumption of innocence" is a procedural principle; "not guilty" is a verdict (result).

Within the system of (Australian) legal discourse, "not guilty" does not mean "innocent", because the finding of "innocence" is not available to the court. Not guilty simply means that the prosecutor was not able to prove that the defendant did it. (Here, we could also have a supplementary discussion about the different standards for burden of proof.)

Moreover, the principle of the "presumption of innocence" isn't "innocent until proven guilty", but rather derives from the Latin "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negate", which translates roughly as "the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts, not with the one who denies".


As a procedural principle, the presumption of innocence does not ascribe the character of innocence to anyone, nor even presumes it of anyone. Rather, it is a means of legitimating particular judicial processes and techniques — e.g. those concerning the acquisition of evidence, witness testimony and examination, etc. — and disqualifying others. To risk an analogy, we could say that the "presumption of innocence" is built into judicial procedures in the sense that the presumption that people generally are not psychopaths is built into the procedures of polite social interaction. When I want to buy something from a shop, for instance, I take it up to the counter and conduct my behaviour and speech as though the sales clerk were not a violent psychopath. The fact that I make it out of the store alive doesn't in itself mean that the sales clerk isn't a psychopath, that he/she wasn't about to stab me in the eye with a hunting knife.

It's a bit silly, or at least contentious, to appeal to "presumption of innocence" outside the context of the judiciary, as SupermanCapes explained.
Did you just ChatGPT that or are you not really an ignoramus ?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Plus Never Tear Us Apart has gone from one of my favourite songs to something I can't stand because of the Pear.
At least all our silly stuff like the rolling anchor were so bad they were good for a laugh. They take take lame thing with the song so seriously but it's really just pure cringe.
 
I reckon it's too early to call, but Melbourne are going to have to go harder if they want a win out in the rain.
 
These blocking free kicks to Gawn are ridiculous. It's starting to remind me of our Hawthorn prelim when the umps were briefed in advance to look for reasons to pay frees against Ballas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top