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

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.

Pablo_Flox

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

El_Duderino 09

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

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.

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.

seagull

I posted a very similar question about 18 months back.

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.

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.

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.

The pigeon man

Not guilty verdict is pretty simple. It means the person was innocent of the charges before the case was brought and that they continue to be innocent after the verdict.

GM228

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.

Well....

I could argue that's not exactly what it means, but, it may be too semantic.

Peregrinus

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.

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

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.

+1

I'll note two posts of mine from the previous time we had this discussion.

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

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

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.

I accept your point Hullaballoo on public perception, and note what I stated:-

GM228 wrote: »

that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, but has that general effect.

Aren't these sort of threads (albeit naunced) the types we like to discuss?

Perhaps we should post a public announcement for such topics?

Warning: Content not appropriate for the general public:-

the following feathery logic is ok for an academic journal

Edgware

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.

Correction: The standard of proof is beyond "reasonable doubt" not" all reasonable doubt"
There is a big difference.

Peregrinus

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.

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.

What's simple, and correct, is this: the proper descriptor for someone who is found not guity is "found not guilty" (or "acquitted", if you prefer). The consequences of such a finding are far-reaching; the state must treat you as not having committed the crime with which you were charged, and the double-jeopardy rule prevents the question from being reopened, so in that sense the finding is conclusive and the resulting treatment enduring.

But, though the power of the state is awesome, it is not unlimited. The state's finding cannot alter the objective reality. If the objective reality is that you did commit the crime, but you were found not guilty because the state failed to assemble and present the required evidence, the not guilty finding does not alter the objective reality; you did commit the crime. Conclusive evidence may indeed later emerge that you did commit the crime. This will not alter the finding.

GM228

Edgware wrote: »

Correction: The standard of proof is beyond "reasonable doubt" not" all reasonable doubt"
There is a big difference.

Actually, in the Supreme Court Hardy vs Ireland [1994] 2 IR 550 case Hederman J confirmed it:-

Hardy vs Ireland wrote:

requires that the prosecution should prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt

realdanbreen

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

It's a bit like when you hear a defence lawyer say 'so and so has not come to the attention of the gardai over the last 5 years'
That doesn't mean that so and so hasn't been out robbing/stealing or whatever his speciality is during the previous 5 years.

GM228

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.

Reminds me of the question sexmag asked previously:-

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.

A person found guilty can not subsequently be found not guilty.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

A person found guilty can not subsequently be found not guilty.

Not even on, or pursuant to, an appeal?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not even on, or pursuant to, an appeal?

The original conviction is quashed.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

The original conviction is quashed.

Might a retrial be ordered, which might result in an acquittal?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Might a retrial be ordered, which might result in an acquittal?

Actually yes you are correct, upon retrial a person who was previously found guilty can in fact be acquitted.

Peregrinus

My work here is done.

Riskymove

the way I look at it is that a trial sets out to examine if a person can be proven guilty of carrying out the crime

It does not set out to prove the innocence of the person

If you are found not guilty, this simply means the evidence did not prove you did it. However, it does not declare that you didn't do it either.

But unless guilt is proven then we are all "presumed" to be innocent

B-D-P--

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"?

Riskymove

B-D-P-- wrote: »

Would I still be "Not Guilty"?

yes

Indeed most people would accept you are innocent of the crime along with everyone else who couldn't have been in Ireland at the time etc.

But you (and they) are not legally proven to be innocent

banie01

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"?

Is one not obliged to present their alibi evidence to the DPP prior to trial?
So this kind of Hollywood stroke is unlikely to happen in a real trial unless you somehow had amnesia and in the middle of the trial regained your memory?

One of the more learned (and actually qualified members) may be able to confirm?

Would such a situation also not more likely lead to a nolle prosequi? Or strike out rather than progressing to a verdict?

Peregrinus

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"?

Yes. The only verdicts that can be returned are "guilty" and "not guilty".

Of course, anyone following the trial and observing the evidence would know that your innocence had been conclusively demonstrated and triumphantly vindicated. But they wouldn't know that from the verdict alone.

banie01

Riskymove wrote: »

yes

Indeed most people would accept you are innocent of the crime along with everyone else who couldn't have been in Ireland at the time etc.

But you (and they) are not legally proven to be innocent

This is misleading.
There is no scope for any Irish court to issue a finding of "innocent".
As in any trial, the accused is automatically entitled to presumptive innocence.

The accused most be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
A not guilty verdict, vindicates the legal right to presumptive innocence.

Moral or indeed factual innocence aside.

NUTLEY BOY

seagull wrote: »

I posted a very similar question about 18 months back.

You did.

This was my 10 cents worth ;

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.

TheBoyConor

Depending on the particular circumstances of the crime and the accused, sometimes a not guilty verdict will really be a "they got away with it" .

Not legally, but practically there are two types of not guilty verdicts.

1. not guilty, they probably did it but doubt, problems with evidence, screwed up investigation, they get away with it. <snip>
2. not guilty, accused shows that they clearly couldn't possibly be the perpetrator, they are totally exonerated.

The legal system makes no distinction between the two though. Which is probably why the "not proven" verdict was introduced in scotland to label people who are more than likey the culprit.

hullaballoo

Moderator: TheBoyConor, you cannot name an individual as having gotten "away with it" here like that. Please refrain from doing so in future. That goes for anywhere on the site.

Riskymove

banie01 wrote: »

This is misleading.
There is no scope for any Irish court to issue a finding of "innocent".
As in any trial, the accused is automatically entitled to presumptive innocence.

The accused most be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
A not guilty verdict, vindicates the legal right to presumptive innocence.

Moral or indeed factual innocence aside.

but that is exactly what I set out

there is no finding of innocence in a court regardless of how obvious it may be that the person could not have done it

but until found guilty we are all presumed innocent

hullaballoo

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.

The flaw is not mine but is the false equivalence and appeal to emotion here. The argument cannot be turned over as above because of the presumption of innocence.

We cannot compare someone who is convicted when in fact they did not commit the offence with someone who is acquitted when in fact they did commit the offence. These are not two sides of one coin.

One is an absolute travesty that is universally condemned as being a complete miscarriage of justice that ought to never occur. The other is a product of a properly functioning justice system.

The two things cannot be equated and it's somewhat surprising to encounter such an argument here.

What's simple, and correct, is this: the proper descriptor for someone who is found not guity is "found not guilty" (or "acquitted", if you prefer). The consequences of such a finding are far-reaching; the state must treat you as not having committed the crime with which you were charged, and the double-jeopardy rule prevents the question from being reopened, so in that sense the finding is conclusive and the resulting treatment enduring.

I don't think you would take issue with the expression of the presumption of innocence as "innocent until proven guilty"? What I mean is that it is not regarded as an over-simplification of the presumption. It means what it means and it is a legal standard.

If the threshold for establishing guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is not met, the accused is innocent. If "found not guilty" the corollary due to the presumption of innocence as it is is that the person is innocent.

The semantics I cavil with are arguments around the expression of this finding in ways that purport to inculpate an accused person who has not had their guilt proven. While a decently nuanced argument is one I am more than happy to get into and explore in the ordinary course, I think it's entirely inappropriate here at this time in the context and environment we're in.

This thread hasn't cropped up from nothing from idle ponderings in an academic context, where exploratory arguments are fitting. This question arises from the ongoing discussion around the acquittal of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding in Belfast last year, where there are factions at each other's throats over the meaning of the acquittal and drawing flawed conclusions to suit their own emotional or moral reaction to the case.

But, though the power of the state is awesome, it is not unlimited. The state's finding cannot alter the objective reality. If the objective reality is that you did commit the crime, but you were found not guilty because the state failed to assemble and present the required evidence, the not guilty finding does not alter the objective reality; you did commit the crime. Conclusive evidence may indeed later emerge that you did commit the crime. This will not alter the finding.

I have already set out above that a finding of fact is not capable of being 100% representative of what may or may not have occurred but I am happy to do so again. You are of course correct that the reality of occurrences may be markedly different from what is found by a Court. That's the imperfection of the system but it's the best available system (until we get to a stage where Google start administering justice, I presume.)

I do not cavil with that in any way but again, I think the attempt to overlay the discussion with nuance or semantics on the basis that the courts cannot establish as a matter of absolute truth occurrences of the past is disingenuous in the present external context.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

The flaw is not mine but is the false equivalence and appeal to emotion here. The argument cannot be turned over as above because of the presumption of innocence..

The point about the presumption of innocence is that it's a presumption which binds the state, and controls what the state may (and may not) do to you.

The State presumes you are innocent until you have actually been convicted. I am not bound to make any such presumption. Hypothetically, I may know you are guilty; I may, for example, be the victim of your crime. I may know that you are guilty before you have even been charged; I may know you are guilty while the trial is still ongoing. And, even if you are acquitted, I may know you are guilty. Because, in fact, although acquitted, you may in fact be guilty, and not innocent at all.

In most circumstances, of course, I'm unlikely to have such reliable first-hand knowledge and, like you, when someone is acquitted I take that as a fairly strong indicator that they didn't do it.

But I think we also have to recognise that the very high burden of proof required for a conviction means that, if there is a mismatch between the finding and the objective reality, it's far more likely to be finding of not guilty when in fact the defendant is guilty than a conviction when the defendant is innocent. That's as it should be, of course. But the fact remains that for every one innocent person who is convicted - and we know this does happen - there are likely to be numerous guilty people who are acquitted. They are presumed innocent, and rightly so, but we wouldn't need to construct and apply a presumption in the matter if the court finding meant that we knew they were innocent.

I don't say this to demonise people who have been charged with and acquitted of crimes; not at all. But we need to recognise this in order to draw other important conclusions, one of which is this: even if acquitted, people are severly harmed by being prosecuted because, despite the acquittal, the odour of suspicion, the lingering doubt, may still attach to them and they may be severely injured by that; their innocence has not been established by the acquittal. And a conclusion that we draw from that is that it's oppressive and an abuse of state power to prosecute people unless you are confident of securing a conviction, or for any other reason than to secure a conviction.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

even if acquitted, people are severly harmed by being prosecuted because, despite the acquittal, the odour of suspicion, the lingering doubt, may still attach to them and they may be severely injured by that; their innocence has not been established by the acquittal. And a conclusion that we draw from that is that it's oppressive and an abuse of state power to prosecute people unless you are confident of securing a conviction, or for any other reason than to secure a conviction.

Unfortunately the opinion of the Court of Public Opinion often seems to trump the finding of a court of law.

B_ecke_r

I recommend the Court Junkie (Podcast) episode - Reasonable Doubt makes you really think about this.