100%, which I'm not sure is a good thing. BTW, there's no 'allegedly' about OJ Simpson; he was acquitted after a fair trial and is therefore innocent. Sticks in the craw of many, but what can you do?
an innocent man wouldn't have been sued for wrongful death, therefore he was guilty. he just didn't go to prison but was ruined, like he should have been
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. (wiki)
Presumption of innocence is a right of the people. You are innocent if you are not proven guilty. Ergo, as far as federal criminal court is concerned, he is innocent.
I dont know much about this case specifically, so my comment is meant in general. But if you killed someone and a jury couldnt proof your guilt, that doesnt retroactively alter the fact and means that suddenly the timeline changes and you havent killed anyone. If you have killed someone, you are not innocent. Something being proven or not does not change the facts that actually happened. (legally being found not guilty is a different thing)
Ha! I am a lawyer, though not an American one. Weird laws over there. Still, this principle is the same - not guilty is innocent in the eyes of the law. Obviously he's not actually innocent, but legally he most certainly is. The clue lies in the fact he didn't go to jail for murder. The word "allegedly" is misused, at least in its legal sense, which would be used to state that he is accused, but not yet tried. OJ was tried and acquitted, so he's innocent and not allegedly a killer (legally).
He still killed his ex wife. JetPunk quizzes are not written in indecipherable legalese. Though that could be an interesting subject for another quiz...
The OJ Simpson trial was a farce. He was found not guilty of the murders after a trial that was broadcast live on TV (which made it be influenced by popular opinion) and had a jury with members continually being replaced for no particularly good reason. Except it was so clearly a miscarriage of justice no matter whether he was guilty of not, so they had another trial in which he was found guilty, but not of murder because he had already been cleared of that and so they couldn't reverse the decision. Instead he was found "responsible" for the deaths (whatever that means, presumably he didn't kill them by accident), and was ordered to pay the families of the victims so much money that he went bankrupt. It is an excellent example of the principle that the laws applying to ordinary people just don't apply to certain groups (in this case famous people). The punishment for murder should be prison, or whatever better system can be found, not public humiliation and bankruptcy.
He was found innocent in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial you can be charged with a crime, such as murder. Later, he was sued by the Goldman family in a civil court. In a civil court, you cannot be charged with a crime, and you cannot be found guilty or innocent. But you can be found responsible to pay damages. In this case, OJ was found responsible for the death of the Goldman's son, and was supposed to pay restitution. He declared bankruptcy and had property in other states that they couldn't touch so they didn't get much. However, years later when he wrote his reprehensible book "If I Did It," they were able to stop publication. The book later came out with the added subtitle "Confessions of a Killer," with all proceeds going to the Goldmans.
Oh, and, in reality you can't just be acquitted of something and suddenly be innocent whether you killed anyone or not. Maybe in the system designed to give judges a mandate to do whatever they like (after wasting everyone's time and money) that is the law, but not in reality.
Jared did a lot worse than collect child porn (although that in itself is despicable). He actually had sex with 12 year old girls and was hunting for more at the time of his arrest.
Hadn't heard about that. That's still not that bad. But I didn't mean it was sad that he would be considered as bad as these others (though maybe it is a little)... what I meant was that it's sad he had his fall from grace, being once liked and now despised.
Wdym not as bad as the others? There's a complete range of the type of people on this list and Jared's crimes are a lot worse than some of the others. Martin Luther King Jr's family have advocated for a while for Ray's innocence, and later sued the FBI recently for involvement in MLK's death and won. So it's very likely that he's completely innocent. John Lennon was a terrible person, still Mark David Chapman's definitely one too for killing him, but I'd definitely argue it's not as awful is as abusing a child like that. The same could be argued for Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Guy Fawkes is just straight up a hero. John Dillinger's crimes were definitely not as bad as what Jared did. Sure Jared's not as bad as Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy, but they also abused children.
::shrug:: it's not.. he might have done other worse things I'm not that familiar with the case. We can't have a full discussion about it here without getting censored though, so, whatever.
I don't know who hates who, but I agree that to say "it's not that bad" is absolutely disgusting and makes my skin crawl. YES, IT IS THAT BAD. IT'S WORSE THAN BAD. IT'S REPULSIVE AND DEVASTATING to a poor, innocent child.
It's possible that JFK was accidentally shot by one of his own secret service agents. The first shot(which came from Oswald's gun) passed through the back of his seat and through his chest, and the second kill shot, which exploded on impact unlike the first shot, came from two separate guns. See Bonar Menninger's "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" and the TV documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun".
I'm a bit surprised Gavrilo Princip doesn't get a mention. He's the only one here who managed to start a whole world war, when he shot Archduke Ferdinand.
The rivalries and treaties were complex, but there is absolutely no doubt that Austria's moves against Serbia in retribution for their citizen's murder of Austria's heir apparent triggered all the defense pacts to fall into place putting everyone at war.
Given that that was an act of terror/revolution, it would be slippery to call Princip a "criminal." Yes, he was a murderer, but it was a whole international thing, and he kind of goes into a different category, I think.
You should add "alleged" to James Earl Ray as the assassin of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He recanted before he died and MLK's youngest son, Dexter, accepted Ray's claim of innocence. As with JFK, I guess we'll never know for certain.
Oswald was never tried so we only know with a very high degree of certainty that he was guilty. Maybe not 100%. On the other hand, we do know for certain that the many conspiracy theories spun about the assassination are nonsense. Such as the fact that there were not multiple shooters targeting Kennedy from different directions. That's easy to prove.
Oswald was guilty of being involved with people that used him as part of a plan to assassinate JFK. We will never know who really did the shooting, but to pretend that Oswald fired all the shots that day is just doing an 'ostrich act'. Many Americans are happy to draw a line under the assassination by saying 'Oswald acted alone'....... it is easier than admitting that there are powers at work that can't be uncovered.
Malbaby... you've watched some videos with conspiracy nonsense BS in them. It's perfectly reasonable to think Oswald fired every shot from the book depository.
Never sure if sirhan sirhan is a soccerplayer or not.. but that is ( had to look it up) zinedine zidane... (Ithought sidon sidane or something,so even closer)
I know this is not how quizzing works but John Lennon's murderer killed him with the ambition of becoming famous. Which is why the court case wasn't covered a lot in the press at the time. They explicitly didn't want him to become famous for killing somebody. Would you maybe consider taking him out of this quiz? I kinda like the idea of him not getting what he wanted.
Presumption of innocence is a right of the people. You are innocent if you are not proven guilty. Ergo, as far as federal criminal court is concerned, he is innocent.
Exactly, but we're not the federal criminal court.
All in all, great quiz though :)