Evaluate this statement for logic

[drkitten]

Even the legal example is off target.

Lawyers don't prove someone innocent (usually)... they prove that the defendant is not guilty under the law. In the case of OJ it's possible for him to commit the crime but be not guilty, for example in the case of prosecution malfeasance.

I think I have to disagree with you.

A person who commits a crime is is guilty, even if he's not been convicted. Re-read the statutes. Here's Oklahoma's wording. "A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being." Nothing in there about "unless the prosecution botches the case."

The job of a defense lawyer is to prevent conviction. If he can prevent conviction by, for example, "twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating the jury," then he is indeed just doing his job, but the lawyer still knows that he's guilty.

 

[drkitten]

I don't think so. Perhaps to some of the types of magic he mentions. But if faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, isn't that stating the will can over power reality?

To be fair, the idea that faith can move mountains is a Christian idea, not a Jewish one. The Jews tend to be a lot less into the idea of petitionary prayer (which I agree is a form of magic) than the Christians.

 

[gnome]

I think I have to disagree with you.

A person who commits a crime is is guilty, even if he's not been convicted. Re-read the statutes. Here's Oklahoma's wording. "A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being." Nothing in there about "unless the prosecution botches the case."

The job of a defense lawyer is to prevent conviction. If he can prevent conviction by, for example, "twisting the evidence, getting key pieces excluded, making specious arguments and manipulating the jury," then he is indeed just doing his job, but the lawyer still knows that he's guilty.

It may be splitting hairs, but I tend to think of "guilty" as being within the grasp and consequence of the law, rather than the fact of whether they committed the deed. Even Oklahoma's wording says "unlawfully" -- which to me is undetermined until the verdict. In this context "guilty" doesn't exist outside of the law... except perhaps if one believes in a "higher law" so to speak. A reasonable person might feel that OJ is a murderer in the common use of the term... but "guilty" means something more specific.

IANAL, of course. This is just the way I see it.