We've drifted far off topic here, but what's happened here is you've (hopefully by mistake) mistaken human natural language for a system of logical statements.
Human utterances in natural languages have a bunch of unspoken rules, breaking the rules is something that happens periodically by accident, and enables some amusing comedy (the late Ronnie Barker's most famous work "Four Candles" is a classic example) but on the whole honest participants in a conversation are not trying to break the rules. So. One of the rules is you mustn't mention things in the utterance that are irrelevant. For example:
"I've never been to Sweden in the summer" doesn't _logically_ preclude having never been to Sweden at all, but the rule means "in the summer" shouldn't appear in this utterance unless it's relevant, so it becomes a reasonable assumption for the listener that the speaker _has_ been to Sweden in some other season.
If a person says they believe "Innocent people should not be hanged" you're correct that _logically_ this offers no opinion on whether it's fine to hang guilty people. But the rule says it _does_ carry such an opinion implicitly, if innocence wasn't important it would not be mentioned.
When somebody is being very careful to define something in terms of other words and phrases they've used, we shouldn't assume they just threw some of them in for a laugh, they must all be part of the meaning intended - otherwise we can't communicate at all, just as we can't communicate with people who insist on Humpty Dumpty's rule (a word means whatever Humpty chooses it to mean).