convictions,not speaking about criminals.?
81613
Search the Scripture to find God's will.\n\nRead & study the Scripture with faith, guided by the Holy Spirit. If one reads Scripture looking for errors or contradictions, etc, it is worthless superficial reading which even Satan will help you with.\n\nRely on God's Wisdom to understand Scripture; man's ~wisdom~ is folly.\n\nTrue Faith requires a spiritual relationship; it is not religion or denominationalism or non-denominationalism.
969076
A job in the criminal justice field requires a very clean record, someone with a conviction no matter what it was is definitely not elegible for that job..☺
72234
Maybe it's Innocent.\nOr try these other legal terms to help:\n\nPlea: An accused persons answer to a criminal charge. For example: not guilty; guilty; no contest.\n\nAcquittal: Judgement that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nNolo contendere: No contest-has the same effect as a\nplea of guilty, as far as the criminal sentence is concerned, but may not be considered as an admission of guilt for any other purpose.\n\nHope it helps!
103167
What you're forgetting is that tomorrow it could be you.  If you were accused of a crime, should we not give you any rights, just throw you straight in jail?  If you're just referring to people who have been convicted, which rights do you mean?  They don't have many.  You do have to remember that unless they got the death penalty, they are going to return to society some day.  You don't prepare someone for that by putting them in a hole and telling they they're not a citizen anymore.
1080922
Not true.  Only crimes of moral turpitude are ineligibilities.  Drinking near a store is just a crime of bad taste and silliness.
190998
Yes. Just like with ANYONE, trust is something that must be earned, but a criminal record should not be the basis for the decision to trust or not trust someone... look at who someone is today.... some people, with and without criminal records, are just plain slime, others,with and without criminal records, are simply the salt of the earth and would never, ever betray someone....most fall somewhere in between.
171227
If it was, then every time someone is found not guilty in court the accuser would then be prosecuted.\n\nWould cut down on prosecutions tho'.
717745
Proof, in a criminal case is establishing guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  It is not propaganda, but established fact.
568418
There was a recent case on the news about a death row inmate who was locked up, but just got out because they proved it was another person who did it.  Robert Blake and OJ were not found innocent they were found not guilty which is two different things.  It means the state didn't meet their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).  If you are looking for cases which a person with a lot of evidence against them was found not guilty then their is plenty of cases.\nIf I were you I would focus my search on cases were there was lots of evidence, but were set free because of procedural issues.  That area is pretty interesting.
390736
I would rather not judge. I was not there so i could not say yes or no. If they are guilty then they will be found out.
799300
Nope. Technically, a criminal is someone who does something wrong legally. He's taking a legal action, government has the right to war. It's not illegal.
693678
It would depend on the individual case. If the police and/or prosecution had planted evidence or hid evidence that would have proved someones innocence, then deliberately and knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, then yes, under those circumstances I feel both criminal and civil charges should be brought against the "People". But unfortunately our law system is not perfect and even when everything is done by the book, sometimes an innocent person is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. In those cases you cannot blame the prosecution or law enforcement, and it would be unfair to penalize them.
1172694
WHAT?????? There is something someone is not telling me about them? Did they commit a crime or something?????
545119
Exactly!  I figure if the country has a person who committed murder or drug or gang crimes, why would they tell the US about it on enquiry with a background check?  They will be glad to be rid of the problem person from their society.
259052
As far as an actual statistic, I'm not sure.  However, I think that people lie in court all the time.  People are either honest or dishonest... I don't think that swearing to tell the truth will automaticaly want to make a dishonest person want to tell the truth... it just means that if they don't tell the truth when they swore to, then it's illegal.  And hey, if they are already on trial for something illegal, it's probably not going to bother them if they do something ELSE that's illegal.
510238
why do you care?\nits not the convicted ones you need to be afraid of!!!
319656
A not guilty verdict is not a proclamation of innocence.  A civil court did not find him guilty but they did find him liable.  At this point does it really matter?  This verdict forced the majority of Americans to admit something that minorities have been saying for decades, that the justice system is deeply flawed on both a racial bias and a class bias.  Pundits were saying there was no way cops would plant evidence but cops have historically committed atrocious acts (e.g. Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Rampart, Mississippi Burning 1964).  Is he innocent?  Only he knows now.