Thursday, September 22, 2016

INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY???

Posted by Tim

In his September 19 letter to Archbishop Hon, Ric Eusebio stated:

"common law says that every person is innocent till proven guilty.' 

Of course he said a lot of other ignorant things, but even people on our side are using this "misnomer." Let's educate ourselves. 
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

Also, in the case of Apuron, should he be sued locally, this would be a civil action not a criminal action. The statute of limitations can only be lifted retroactively on civil claims not criminal charges. Thus even the word "guilty" does not apply. Apuron could be found "liable," not "guilty."

As for Church Law, there is no statute of limitations, so they can do whatever they want. And if history is any teacher, Apuron, even if he is found "guilty" of these monstrosities, will be given a cushy job as a rector of some Roman church, or more likely, he'll be Archbishop in Residence at Kiko's Domus Galilaea with his beloved Luis.

Here is Bob Klitzkie's more lengthy and scholarly treatment of this issue. Please, people on our side, read up so you don't sound as stupid as The Ric. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch