Raj Feridun wrote:

> That's our legal system, Eric, like it or not.

That is a cheap way out, akin to Japanese parroting "War is bad" and "No more nukes"
without thinking for themselves.

> >Accused ruled "guilty". Does this mean they did what they were accused of? (Y/N)
>
> Yes, they are legally guilty of the crimes they were accused of based
> on a consideration of their evidence and testimony by a judge and/or
> jury of their peers.

That was not the question. I am asking about what they actually did. Can we execute
someone just because they were convicted of a capital crime, as theoretically,
Charles Jenkins could be?

> >Accused ruled "not guilty". Does this mean they did not do what they were
> >accused of? (Y/N)
>
> Yes, they are legally innocent of the crimes they were accused of
> based on a consideration of their evidence and testimony by a judge
> and/or jury of their peers.

That was not the question. Even I have never been to trial for what I have done. It
will never mean I did not commit the crimes or that I am innocent.

> >If no to the second question, does this mean that the (eg, rape) claimant lied?
> >(Y/N)
>
> N/A.

I mistyped, by the way. It should be "If yes".

You basically, you will accept, eg, be "perfectly happy" with whatever the legal
system gives you, right?

Then it is people like you, not I, who should pray never to be involved with the
law.