nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Acquitted vs not guilty

seagull

I always thought that there was a difference in meaning between these two terms. Am I wrong on that? I thought the difference was along the lines of

- Acquitted - you are found completely innocent, and essentially should be viewed as if you were never charged.
- Not guilty - the case against you was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

amcalester

They mean the same thing.

The issue is where the defendant has been found not guilty and people say that the defendant has been proven innocent, which is not the case.

If a defendant has been found Not Guilty then it has not been proven that he/she is guilty, that does not mean he/she has been proven innocent.

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

They mean the same thing.

The issue is where the defendant has been found not guilty and people say that the defendant has been proven innocent, which is not the case.

If a defendant has been found Not Guilty then it has not been proven that he/she is guilty, that does not mean he/she has been proven innocent.

you don't need to be proven innocent as there is a presumption of innocence.

amcalester

Cyrus wrote: »

you don't need to be proven innocent as there is a presumption of innocence.

Of course but I never said anyone had to be proven innocent.

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

Of course but I never said anyone had to be proven innocent.

no you said it doesn't mean they have been proven innocent, my point is that there isn't any need due to the aforementioned presumption

amcalester

There's no need but they still can't claim to have been proven innocent, yes that presumption was always there but failure to prove a position does not prove the opposite.

Anyway I only wrote that in response to the OP's line

Acquitted - you are found completely innocent

As far as I know there's no degrees of innocence, one is either guilty or not.

Victor

Mentally, we sometimes don't register words like "not". This can sometimes result in "not guilty" being typed or spoken as "guilty". This has defamation and/or administration of justive consequences. Hence the media prefers to use the word "acquit".

Note that Scotland has an additional verdict of "not proven" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

There's no need but they still can't claim to have been proven innocent, yes that presumption was always there but failure to prove a position does not prove the opposite.

Anyway I only wrote that in response to the OP's line

As far as I know there's no degrees of innocence, one is either guilty or not.

no one needs to claim to be proven innocent, unless they are guilty they are innocent.

coylemj

seagull wrote: »

I always thought that there was a difference in meaning between these two terms. Am I wrong on that?

Short answer: Yes.

'Acquitted' is a term you will see in the media - so and so was acquitted by a jury of a charge of xxx.

Earlier, the foreman of the jury will have handed a piece of paper to the registrar with 'not guilty' written against the charge.

That's the answer to your question. There is no 'degree' of not guilty, it's a straight binary decision for guilty or not guilty.

amcalester

Cyrus wrote: »

no one needs to claim to be proven innocent, unless they are guilty they are innocent.

You keep replying to things I didn't say so I'm going to leave it at that.

I was merely trying to expand on what I thought was the source of the OP's confusion.

cruizer101

Cyrus wrote: »

no one needs to claim to be proven innocent, unless they are guilty they are innocent.

But there are more than just the two options

1 Guilty and found guilty
2 Guilty and found not guilty
3 Innocent and found guilty
4 Innocent and found not guilty

Eric Cartman

Cyrus wrote: »

you don't need to be proven innocent as there is a presumption of innocence.

unless its on twitter and youre a rugby player who likes threesomes it seems...

splinter65

cruizer101 wrote: »

But there are more than just the two options

1 Guilty and found guilty
2 Guilty and found not guilty
3 Innocent and found guilty
4 Innocent and found not guilty

In law you are either guilty or innocent.
That’s all that matters.

hullaballoo

The presumption of innocence means you are innocent until proven guilty.

That means if you are not proven to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, you are innocent.

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

You keep replying to things I didn't say so I'm going to leave it at that.

I was merely trying to expand on what I thought was the source of the OP's confusion.

i dont think thats fair but so be it

Mr. Incognito

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont think thats fair but so be it

"Fair" is a subjective moral question

It has no place in the Law which are a series of objective legal questions.

The media frenzy and consequental stupidity, puff pieces, ignorance, prejudice and misinformation is exactly why we have reporting restrictions which the media has ignored and continued to ignore to cynically use the accussed and accusser to garnish attention, circulation and ultimately advertising revenue.

I see that the media has brought an application on Monday next in the North to be able to serialise the trial to sell more opinions

Cyrus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

"Fair" is a subjective moral question

It has no place in the Law which are a series of objective legal questions.

The media frenzy and consequental stupidity, puff pieces, ignorance, prejudice and misinformation is exactly why we have reporting restrictions which the media has ignored and continued to ignore to cynically use the accussed and accusser to garnish attention, circulation and ultimately advertising revenue.

i was replying to the poster who thinks i am twisting his/her words,

nothing beyond that

for the record i agree with you

begbysback

If you are found not guilty then you are acquitted.

Samuel T. Cogley

seagull wrote: »

I always thought that there was a difference in meaning between these two terms. Am I wrong on that? I thought the difference was along the lines of

- Acquitted - you are found completely innocent, and essentially should be viewed as if you were never charged.
- Not guilty - the case against you was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Scotland had a 'not proven' verdict which is something along the lines of what you're thinking - I think. Interesting aside anyway.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Typo *has

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Scotland still has the "not proven" verdict.

I believe there is currently a study which is considering the guilty, not guilty and not proven verdicts with a view to dropping the not proven verdict following comments by the Scottish Justice Committee that the verdict was on "borrowed time".

Samuel T. Cogley

GM228 wrote: »

I believe there is currently a study which is considering the guilty, not guilty and not proven verdicts with a view to dropping the not proven verdict following comments by the Scottish Justice Committee that the verdict was on "borrowed time".

I have to say I prefer the 'Proven' 'Not Proven' verdicts to guilty/not guilty. I think it focuses the jury on their role.

NUTLEY BOY

I think that this is what Lord Denning described as a lawyer's quibble.

Not guilty means that the prosecution failed to reach the required standard of proof.

All people who are innocent are not guilty.
Some people found not guilty are not innocent.
An acquittal is not accompanied by a certificate of innocence.

If acquitted you are deemed innocent but not so declared officially.

Cyrus

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If acquitted you are deemed innocent but not so declared officially.

again i come back to presumption of innocence, no one needs to officially declare you innocent because you were anyway

GM228

I think with regards the presumption of innocence, the vital point is that it simply states the accused must not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove their guilt in accordance with law, that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, but has that general effect.

Guy:Incognito

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I have to say I prefer the 'Proven' 'Not Proven' verdicts to guilty/not guilty. I think it focuses the jury on their role.

I dont.

If you get taken to court and charged with rape and it's "not proven", many more people are going to assume you are guilty than with a not guilty verdict imo.

seagull

I thought Scotland had the "Not proven" in addition to the "not guilty".

GM228

seagull wrote: »

I thought Scotland had the "Not proven" in addition to the "not guilty".

They do, they have 3 verdicts - guilty, not guilty or not proven.

ted1

amcalester wrote: »

There's no need but they still can't claim to have been proven innocent, yes that presumption was always there but failure to prove a position does not prove the opposite.

Anyway I only wrote that in response to the OP's line

Acquitted - you are found completely innocent

As far as I know there's no degrees of innocence, one is either guilty or not.

No one is ever proven innocent.
I have never meet you but I could go to a police station and say “amcalester assaulted me” if it went to court you would never be proven innocent, you will be declared not guilty.

Victor

ted1 wrote: »

No one is ever proven innocent.

Guilty verdicts that are overturned?