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.
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.
hullaballoo wrote: » 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.
Peregrinus wrote: » Even if "not guilty" means "innocent", a not guilty verdict wouldn't mean that you are innocent; just that you have been found innocent. Objectively speakign, you may in fact be guilty - just as, objectively speaking, someone who has been found guilty may in fact be innocent. But, in fact, a not guilty verdict does not mean that you have been found innocent. It means that the court has not been satisfied beyond reasonable doub that you are guilty. That's all it means; that's the only question the court ever seeks to answer. "Is he innocent of this charge?" is not a question the court ever asks itself, much less answers.
GM228 wrote: » 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.
GM228 wrote: » It is not possible in law for a court to "prove" innocence. There is a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", it's important to note that this distinction is relevant because of the way the criminal justice system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that the accused committed the crime. The reality is that our courts are not really concerned with if a person committed a crime or not, rather the issue is whether or not the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Remember Blackstone's ratio - "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", the criminal justice system agrees that wrongful imprisonment/punishment of an innocent person is unacceptable, and so we have the presumption of innocence. As a result of the presumption the court doesn't place a burden on the accused to prove their innocence, rather there is a requirement for the prosecutor prove the accused guilty, the Golden Thread. If the prosecutor can't do that, then the defendant is "not guilty", and there's no need even to discuss whether the defendant is in fact innocent or not, nor is there a provision in law which allows for such. In law "not guilty" simply means the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and nothing more - the accused is not culpable for the crime they are accused of.
hullaballoo wrote: » I have nothing but respect for the views of the two previous posters. They are both lawyers par excellence imo. But I think this kind of conflation of meanings in what is a straightforward question is utterly dangerous for a public discussion forum in light of what everyone has seen happen to public perception of the meaning of a not guilty verdict. If a person is found not guilty, there is no proper descriptor for them other than innocent. It's as simple as that. And that is what the presumption really means. Until you are found to be guilty, you are innocent. The mega issue is the no smoke without fire brigade not able to accept the finding of a court on these things and feathery logic like the above that might be ok for an academic journal is as I say utterly dangerous in a public forum.
GM228 wrote: » that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, but has that general effect.
hullaballoo wrote: » 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.
hullaballoo wrote: » I think this kind of conflation of meanings in what is a straightforward question is utterly dangerous for a public discussion forum in light of what everyone has seen happen to public perception of the meaning of a not guilty verdict. If a person is found not guilty, there is no proper descriptor for them other than innocent. It's as simple as that. And that is what the presumption really means. Until you are found to be guilty, you are innocent. The mega issue is the no smoke without fire brigade not able to accept the finding of a court on these things and feathery logic like the above that might be ok for an academic journal is as I say utterly dangerous in a public forum.
Edgware wrote: » Correction: The standard of proof is beyond "reasonable doubt" not" all reasonable doubt" There is a big difference.
Hardy vs Ireland wrote: requires that the prosecution should prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » 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
Peregrinus wrote: » The flaw here is easily spotted if you simply explore the converse argument: "If a person is found guilty, there is no proper descriptor for them other than guilty. It's as simple as that." But that would mean that the only proper descriptor for the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Sallins Mail Train Robbers(!), etc is "guilty", which defies common sense, logic and basic decency since they were all, in fact, innocent at all times.
GM228 wrote: » sexmag wrote: » Say a person A is brought to trial and given a verdict of guilty regarding a murder. Footage released the next day shows person B committing said murder, is person A then found innocent and der facoto not guilty? No, the person would not be found not guilty per se if already found guilty, rather their conviction would need to be quashed and most likely declared a miscarriage of justice. It's interesting to note that in such a circumstance the accused must apply to the court and prove on the balance of probabilities such a miscarriage of justice.
sexmag wrote: » Say a person A is brought to trial and given a verdict of guilty regarding a murder. Footage released the next day shows person B committing said murder, is person A then found innocent and der facoto not guilty?
GM228 wrote: » A person found guilty can not subsequently be found not guilty.
Peregrinus wrote: » Not even on, or pursuant to, an appeal?
GM228 wrote: » The original conviction is quashed.
Peregrinus wrote: » Might a retrial be ordered, which might result in an acquittal?
B-D-P-- wrote: » Would I still be "Not Guilty"?
B-D-P-- wrote: » Is there a way, you can be proven inniocent? As in, I am tried for murdering someone 14 feb 2019. During trial, I produce evidence showing I was on stage with Ed sheeran at a concert 14 february 2019, with over 100,000 people there and video evidence, the other side of the world. There is no possible way I could have been in Ireland at time. Would I still be "Not Guilty"?
