TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:This = That From:Steve English <ink -at- MICROS -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 31 Jan 1995 10:46:01 -0500
If one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then in
trial found to be not guilty, doesn't that make "not guilty"
equal to "innocent"? At what point did the person's status
change from "presumed innocent" to "not guilty." Why is there a
distinction?
Legally, being found "not guilty" is equal to "innocent". And *if* the
legal system was perfect, that would be true in real life, too. However,
we live in an imperfect world, one in which, for example, John Gotti was
repeatedly found "not guilty" in a series of trials. I admit the possibility
that he was innocent, too, but it's difficult to believe.
