Sparteye
I appreciate your rant in general, since it is often a major plank of fallacious arguments that they use the excluded middle (assuming the negative-negative is identical to the positive such that there is not middle ground), but I wonder how appropriate it is in the particular circumstance you have outlined. My understanding was that, given the 'innocent unless proven guilty' nature of our justice systems, by law, a verdict of not guilty was to be considered equivalent to innocent. In Scotland, possibly because of some discomfort with this idea, they have a third type of verdict the jury can hand down - not proven. (Imagine walking out of court with that hanging over your head: "They knows it was 'im as done it, but they can't not prove it on 'im nor 'ow hard they try, so the guilty fekker is walkin' free down the road as you or I")
My background, however, is not in the legal profession and I would love to be taught more about the issue you discuss. [invitation to post emoticon]
cheer
the sunshine warrior
