Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:... the trial's failure to get to the bottom of things doesn't prove that no crime was committed.
Cycloptichorn
Obviously.
It isn't obvious to many who share a similar ideological bent as you.
Cycloptichorn
Ahh. Some points, I guess, could be made here. First, we should perhaps make a distinction between a
factual crime and a
legal crime.
The facts that make up an underlying alleged crime -- whatever the crime -- either occurred or they did not occur. And this includes the mental state element of a crime, such as intent. The facts and the mental state either occurred in reality or they did not. I think we could all agree that is true.
Thus, the fact that there has been no trial cannot prove that the facts and the mental state sufficient to support a crime did not in fact occur. By that same token, if there is a trial that results in an acquittal, that similarly does not mean the facts and mental state sufficient to support a crime did not in fact occur ... and a conviction does not mean they did. So, the fact that OJ wasn't convicted does not mean he did not in fact stab Nicole.
Now, whether there is a
legal crime, or not, is a function of the judicial system. Thus, if a trial results in a conviction, then a legal crime has been proven, regardless of whether the facts actually lined up in reality as the jury believed. If it results in an acquittal, it does not mean OJ did not kill her in reality, but it means he did not commit a legal crime.
But until such time as there is a trial, the lack of a trial proves nothing, as it regards either a factual or legal crime, until the statute of limitations has run. Once that occurs, there is no chance of a legal crime being proven.
Not trying to parse too fine a distinction here, just trying to find common ground for agreement.