This one is ripe for sardonic misspelling or mispronounciation.
Don't they know English?
- Thread starter Madman Starryteller
- Start date
This one is ripe for sardonic misspelling or mispronounciation.
Ah, love that guy! Not a trønder, but a different species of rural goofball.
The acquittal means they were not adjudicated to have done it. It does not mean they have been adjudicated not to have done it.
OJ was a factual murderer although not a legal murderer. And he was not found innocent, he was found not (provably) guilty,
Different meanings, but both complimentary and complementary could be correct.
Not looking to debate OJ, this is just an examination of the delicacy of the phrasing.
Given that innocent until proved guilty is a cornerstone of judicial process in OJ's jurisdiction, the failure to prove his guilt restores his presumptive status as an innocent man, does it not? Civil proceedings are a different matter with different standards of proof that don't attach a criminal conviction to the defendant. Ones own opinion may call him a factual murderer, someone else can call him an innocent man.
In law, that *is* fact, and the effect is the same.
"Innocent" is not quite the same as "not proven" which is what lawyers are for. "Not proven" seems to mean "We don't have enough evidence to convict you, but there's nothing in what we found that exonerates you, either."
American law, from what I can tell, doesn't use "not proven" as a valid court plea but other countries (mostly UK based) do.
In US law, your acquittal protects you from being tried twice for that crime. I don't know if a "not proven" verdict does the same in UK law, but I suspect that a "not proven" verdict might give the court the right to revisit the case. Perhaps a barrister could chime in here and explain it to me.
In a similar sense the pleas "not guilty" and "nolo contendere" are not the same thing. "Not guilty" contends that you did not do the bad thing you were being charged with., "Nolo," on the other hands says that you do not contest the charges---that is, you knew that you did in fact that particular thing but felt that there were extenuating circumstances.
For example, when I pled "nolo" after being arrested in a demonstration, it meant, in my view, that the arrest itself was contrary to Constitutional laws allowing freedom of assembly. In a less noble instance, Spiro Agnew pled "nolo" when arrested for graft; in his case, his defense seemed to rest on the fact that the previous governors of Maryland took graft money and he felt that he was entitled to do so as well. (The full story on that is told most cogently by Rachel Maddow in her book Bag Man.)
The story of my own brush with the law can be found here:
jayeltee.blogspot.com
American law, from what I can tell, doesn't use "not proven" as a valid court plea but other countries (mostly UK based) do.
In US law, your acquittal protects you from being tried twice for that crime. I don't know if a "not proven" verdict does the same in UK law, but I suspect that a "not proven" verdict might give the court the right to revisit the case. Perhaps a barrister could chime in here and explain it to me.
In a similar sense the pleas "not guilty" and "nolo contendere" are not the same thing. "Not guilty" contends that you did not do the bad thing you were being charged with., "Nolo," on the other hands says that you do not contest the charges---that is, you knew that you did in fact that particular thing but felt that there were extenuating circumstances.
For example, when I pled "nolo" after being arrested in a demonstration, it meant, in my view, that the arrest itself was contrary to Constitutional laws allowing freedom of assembly. In a less noble instance, Spiro Agnew pled "nolo" when arrested for graft; in his case, his defense seemed to rest on the fact that the previous governors of Maryland took graft money and he felt that he was entitled to do so as well. (The full story on that is told most cogently by Rachel Maddow in her book Bag Man.)
The story of my own brush with the law can be found here:
The Capitol, the Mob, and Me
©2021 by John LaTorre As I watched last week’s assault on the United States Capitol, with an angry mob running up the steps of the building,...
jayeltee.blogspot.com
No, it isn't. A legal finding of not guilty is not the same as someone not being guilty in fact. Not guilty - as delivered by a jury or magistrates in an English court - covers everything from completely innocent to 'we think he did it, but the evidence falls just shy of leaving us satisfied so we are sure'. As juries in particular do not deliver judgments, there can be no legal distinction between them, but the actual phrase covers a huge range of potential facts. Only where a judgment delivers the facts of the matter can law and fact be said to be as one. You're correct in saying the effect is the same, but the factual basis is one which cannot be established. (And, thanks to the concept of contempt of court, avenues investigating it are effectively closed. A jury's deliberations are secret, and should remain so).
The Scottish choice to remove 'not proven' is an interesting one. Joshua Rozenberg investigated it a few years ago on Radio 4. The podcast should still be somewhere on BBC Sounds, for the British side of the forum. No doubt further commentary will follow on the same show.
As far as the law is concerned, it's the same thing.
can we park the legal discission please guys - this here is 'don't they know english'... if you're looking for 'pointless arguments' you'll find it in the basement behind the door marked 'beware of the leopard'
Last edited:
Ah, but is it also in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with that sign on its door?
Anyway, back to the English discussion. Boy, it irritates me when I catch spelling or grammar errors on the news. But sometimes it's amusing too.
For instance, this (from The Daily Telegraph):
Um, are they staying or leaving?
Um, are they staying or leaving?
It's referring to people getting aboard boats to head *to* Australia.
I've been thinking (yikes!) a little about this tendency to modernise English by removing gendered nouns such as waitress, empress, etc. And does that not make the language a bit more boring?
Take these sentences I made up as an example:
"The empress ruled over many people."
This tells us the sex of the individual without any further words.
While:
"She was the baron of the region."
Here we must add a word to indicate what sex the baron was.
In my opinion, I think gendered nouns should be here to stay. They make the formation of interesting and direct sentences easier without the need for further clarification-words.
Not sure if this should be its own thread.
Take these sentences I made up as an example:
"The empress ruled over many people."
This tells us the sex of the individual without any further words.
While:
"She was the baron of the region."
Here we must add a word to indicate what sex the baron was.
In my opinion, I think gendered nouns should be here to stay. They make the formation of interesting and direct sentences easier without the need for further clarification-words.
Not sure if this should be its own thread.
There's a distinction between nouns and titles. Titles are often gendered (Baroness, Marchioness, Duchess, Empress), nouns can sometimes be and sometimes not.
I'm still waiting for "Popess."
Agreed. The other day I heard a newsreader referring to Cate Blanchett as "an actor" and screamed internally: "Actress! ACTRESS! Agggghhhhh!!!"
I also remember reading (e.g. in Agatha Christie) about gendered nouns - waitress, empress etc. - and I can add another one: laundress (i.e. a female employee of a laundry).
One gendered noun that has definitely had its day is air hostess. But although we don't say that anymore, what's wrong with saying "hostess" (as differentiated from host)?
That's been done. Pope Joan - Wikipedia
(And if anyone actually believes that story, I have a bridge to sell them. Limited offer! While supplies last! You can cross it one way, and then the other! Gasp - whatta deal! ;-P
It's a fun story, but alas, it's not true).
Because one is the person who hosts a gathering, the other makes Twinkies.
