|
Funny, because an individual's opinion is what every justice system in the world is based on. Judges, juries, etc. All just individuals whose opinions are based on the evidence heard. It's perfectly acceptable in all forms of media to refer to a person as 'guilty' after the relevant judge (whether that be a formal judge, a jury, or the ruling body for whatever set of rules is at hand) has found that person to be guilty. For instance, Scott Peterson (guy who was found guilty of murdering his wife) is routinely referred to as guilty. Why? Because the resolution system surrounding the rules we play by (the legal system) found him so. Does that make him 100% guilty? Of course not. Guilt-beyond-a-doubt is not possible to prove. Formal methods of proof are not required for everyday conversation OR for the purposes of a legal system, however.
How odd. It was information that is highly relevant to the site insofar as it could happen again. I can't see any reason to withhold or try to suppress discussion about something so relevant to the site.
--matt
|