They can then be arrested.
They may later be charged.
A court can eventually find them guilty or not guilty.
If convicted, the court may then impose a sentence.
These are completely different stages.
A social-media post that says someone was “caught” may create the impression that guilt has already been established. But an arrest itself does not prove guilt.
Similarly, being charged does not mean the prosecution's allegations have been proven.
The legal system requires evidence and a judicial process before a person can be convicted.
This distinction becomes particularly important when a photograph is highly emotional.
A crying defendant can make viewers feel sympathy.
An angry defendant can make viewers feel suspicious.
A person wearing prison clothing can make viewers assume guilt.
But none of those visual details establish the facts of the case.
Facial expressions are not evidence.
Photographs of handcuffs are not evidence of guilt.
And a viral caption is certainly not a substitute for a court record.
The same applies to claims about extreme sentences.
If a reliable report states that a person received 86 years, readers should still ask what that number represents.
Was it the sentence for one conviction?
Were there multiple convictions?
Were the sentences consecutive?
Was the person sentenced in adult court?
Was the sentence later modified on appeal?
Did the case involve a plea agreement?
Did the defendant actually receive the sentence described in the viral post, or was the number taken from an earlier stage of the proceedings?
These questions may sound technical, but they can completely change how a case should be understood.