Just a small correction. Being not proven guilty doesn’t proves innocence. It just means that the accusation couldn’t be proven in court. That’s the price we pay for our justice system which tries to keep wrong convictions as small as possible, quite a few guilty people will walk free.
And I think in this case a guilty person walks free.
He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.
There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.
It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.
You are still allowed to dislike innocent people. The law is not morality.
Just a small correction. Being not proven guilty doesn’t proves innocence. It just means that the accusation couldn’t be proven in court. That’s the price we pay for our justice system which tries to keep wrong convictions as small as possible, quite a few guilty people will walk free.
And I think in this case a guilty person walks free.
He also wasn’t found “innocent”, but “not guilty”.
There’s a vast difference between that. Not guilty means that we can’t prove he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not that we can prove that he’s innocent.
It’s still very likely he committed crimes, but we can’t be sure enough to send him to jail.
I have never heard about an “innocent” verdict, is that really a thing?
I think the closest you get to that is if you counter-sue (or they get sued for lying in court, etc.) the accusers and win.