Does being "actually guilty" mean you have:
A) Been found guilty in a court of law
B) Broken a law / Committed a crime
Joel argues FOR B (actually guilty = committed the crime)
-----
What's CLEAR is that Justice Black is making a distinction
between a situation where a person has *actually* committed
the crime (what he calls being *actually guilty) and being
*legally* guilt.
-----
Joel argues AGAINST B (actually guilty <> committed the crime)
-----
The tough part to deal with is that you needn't *actually*
have committed the crime to be *actually* guilty in this
context.
-----
Joel argues FOR B (actually guilty = committed the crime)
-----
When Black uses the term *actually guilty* he means actually
having committed the crime. He is holding this up against the
concept of legal guilty where this isn't necessarily the
case.
-----
Joel argues FOR A (actually guilty = found guilty)
-----
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a
legal sense", being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or
being *actually* guilty "in a legal sense", all mean the same
thing.
-----
Joel argues FOR B (actually guilty = committed the crime)
-----
[Justice Black] is drawing the distinction between legal
guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the crime... the same
distinction that *I* am drawing.
-----
Joel argues for... C? (actually guilty DOES NOT EXIST!)
-----
There is no such thing as *actually* guilty in this context.
There is only guilty or not guilty.
-----
Strange how one person can have so many contradictory views, and *still*
think they are being consistent.
--
Best CMS Solution of 2017
https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o
http://bit.ly/2oNYRgv
Jonas Eklundh Communication