>> >> The guilty plea has been used, in this discussion, as proof that the driver
>> was culpable - but it is absolutely not proof of that.
>>
>> You're constructing a legal framework in your mind which doesn't exist in the real world.
>> The proof (EDIT: after judgement), real or not, presented or not, has no value. The
>> only thing of value is the judgement, guilty, or not guilty. Discard all notion of
>> "strength" of the proof.
No I'm not. I have already agreed with you that, yes, as far as the legal process is concerned they are still guilty, because they pleaded guilty.
The logical (not legal) mistake that you are making, and has been made several times above, is to suggest that because they pleaded guilty, that it proves they were actually responsible for the accident.
Once again, people plead guilty for numerous reasons, it doesn't actually prove they were at fault.
I could be put on trial for a murder that I didn't commit, I could be advised that my alibi is weak and that my fingerprints were at the scene and that I would be considered to have motive. I might be advised that I should plead guilty to manslaughter, and I would get off with 2 years.
If I decided that, yes, I would plead guilty, then I would indeed be considered guilty, but it wouldn't change the fact that I was not actually responsible for the killing.
Exactly the same here. Because she pleaded guilty is absolutely not proof that she was responsible, any more than me pleading guilty to manslaughter is proof that I killed anybody.
What exactly is it that you don't get about that?
Once again...if the argument is "she must be responsible because she pleaded guilty", then that argument is deeply flawed.
Just one more time, because I haven't gotten through before, a guilty plea will mean that you will be treated as guilty, BUT is absolutely does not mean that you were responsible.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 21:26
|