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

Not guilty vs innocent

El_Duderino 09

Apologies if this topic has been done before. The search function on boards is guff.

I know courts rule on guilt. So there either is or is not enough evidence to find someone guilty of a crime.

But the point I would like to iron out is whether a not guilty verdict is effectively an innocent verdict. Since people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, is a not guilty verdict effectively a finding of innocence?
Cheers

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

banie01

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Yes, but in reality just because someone was found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent. Some horrible crimes have had the accused get off on some technicality or because someone screwed up with evidence or that.

Yes it does.
Legally they are entirely innocent, that's exactly what it means.

Morally and philosophically, of course criminals have avoided conviction.
The fact remains however, that no matter what evidence is presented if it was not enough to sway a Judge or Jury beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt then that person is innocent of the crime accused if they are deemed "not guilty"

People can argue the morality and semantics of that innocence.
But!
The simple fact is that our justice system is entirely founded upon the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

As such, not guilty = innocent no matter how bunched up it may get knickers or triggered it makes people.

I don't mean that dismissively either.
Many people, myself included have been involved in matters where it's "known" who is guilty and what they are guilty of.
However when it goes to court, the weight of evidence isn't sufficient.

hullaballoo

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Yes, but in reality just because someone was found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent. Some horrible crimes have had the accused get off on some technicality or because someone screwed up with evidence or that.

Au contraire, that's exactly what it means. Not guilty means innocent.

No amount of semantic gymnastics will ever change that so long as our constitution remains intact.

TheBoyConor

banie01 wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to present enough evidence to prove the accused commited the offence for which they are on trial.
The presumption of innocence is inviolate, one isn't found not guilty by way of incorrectly collected evidence or technicality.

Not Guilty is a synonym for innocent in a criminal trial.

Yes, but in reality just because someone was found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent. Some horrible crimes have had the accused get off on some technicality or because someone screwed up with evidence or that.

seagull

I posted a very similar question about 18 months back.

hullaballoo

The presumption of innocence works in such a way that it means if the prosecution fail to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused person is regarded as innocent.

So, in real terms, a not guilty verdict means the accused is innocent. Even just from first principles, not guilty means you're not guilty of committing the crime.

In Scotland, they have an alternative verdict of "not proven", which has significant problems and causes more issues than it solves wrt to the gap between sufficient evidence for a conviction and no evidence at all.

At both ends of the scale, because of imperfections in the available means for testing evidence, it is not possible to say with certainty that verdicts of guilty/not guilty are always 100% accurate. But the system is weighted against convicting an innocent person.

banie01

Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to present enough evidence to prove the accused commited the offence for which they are on trial.
The presumption of innocence is inviolate, one isn't found not guilty by way of incorrectly collected evidence or technicality.

Not Guilty is a synonym for innocent in a criminal trial.

El_Duderino 09

Those two posts above seem to me to be contradictory. Are they?

Pablo_Flox

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

TheBoyConor

It means they couldn't prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
That doesn't mean they are innocent.
It means they may or may not have committed the crime but the evidence is insufficient or not solid enough to remove all reasonable doubt.