Not Guilty v Innocent
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
Welp, that sure is an interpretation you don't hear too often.
Because it's stupid and wrong.
Hmm, if I were to be pointlessly academic about it, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' reminds me of the saying that evolution (sorry) is 'like the survival of the fittest' - it's a tasty soundbite that whilst providing a sufficient practical summary of the way things work... it doesn't actually accurately describe what is going on.
If we were to avoid all tricky strict liability laws that might exist, you will only be held guilty in our courts if it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that you are guilty. If that is not established (i.e. you are found to be 'not guilty'), that is not the same as saying it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that you are truly innocent. In other words, it is not a test of innocent or guilt, but more accurately one of being guilty or not guilty. At the very least, you cannot say that for the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty', innocent and guilty have their natural polar opposite meanings.
How pointless my musings are.
If we were to avoid all tricky strict liability laws that might exist, you will only be held guilty in our courts if it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that you are guilty. If that is not established (i.e. you are found to be 'not guilty'), that is not the same as saying it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that you are truly innocent. In other words, it is not a test of innocent or guilt, but more accurately one of being guilty or not guilty. At the very least, you cannot say that for the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty', innocent and guilty have their natural polar opposite meanings.
How pointless my musings are.
Last edited:
another poster is in need of your legal wisdom in this thread:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18675567
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
43 posts and it still isn't answered really.
You'd think there would be an official site that says 'In English Law Not Guilty equals Innocence' or whatever but I can't find anything, they all seem to skirt round the issue.
From what I'm getting from this thread is that it isn't black & white but different shades of grey.
I would have thought we'd have some Law students on here who can give a 100% answer.
This where I miss Castiel because he would have Google'd and Wiki'd this to certainty.
You'd think there would be an official site that says 'In English Law Not Guilty equals Innocence' or whatever but I can't find anything, they all seem to skirt round the issue.
From what I'm getting from this thread is that it isn't black & white but different shades of grey.
I would have thought we'd have some Law students on here who can give a 100% answer.
This where I miss Castiel because he would have Google'd and Wiki'd this to certainty.
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Different people are saying different things so who are right and who are wrong?
Well google it and you'll soon know!
Edit: And this is just plain wrong Dimple!
Someone like Castiel is educated and will provide a coherent argument. He often though could be very wrong and then would stubbornly repeatedly apply a point on a subject he had no actual knowledge of. This does you no favours then if you take that person's word as gospel. You are presuming their eloquence is a precursor to "fact". And that is not necessarily the case - it is merely an indicator for eloquence. I could quite happily argue things I know to be false, just to be pedantic, and I have done that in the past because sometimes getting someone to break down such a position is a good method of learning. It helps them examine how they came to their beliefs and what weight of evidence they have behind them. It is however far better to examine these things yourself and then weigh what is said to you and by whom and to pick up the general themes. Eg in this thread you have to concepts that are interchanged in common and professional parlance however there is a subtle difference there one indicated an absence of sufficient evidence to damn whereas the other indicating a concept of guilt-free. One is judgement the other a characteristic but nevertheless the words are interchanged in the same way responsible and accountable are interchanged even though strictly they do mean two very different things.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Well google it and you'll soon know!
And the circle continues.
Let's go back to Barry George and the killing of Jill Dando.
He was found guilty, went to prison and for years people fought for him to be retried.
He was acquitted on retrial and found not guilty, he was then retried again and found unanimously not guilty.
He then tried to get compensation but he can't get it because he hasn't proved he is innocent so this makes me think that Not Guilty can't be the same as Innocent.
And that is what we've been telling you!
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I thought you were debating the other way.
I might as well be reading Chinese
So is Not Guilty equal to Innocent?
As Xordium bangs his head on the keyboard 3 things may occur next:
1) Xordium shoots Dimple and admits guilt - GUILTY
2) Xordium shoots Dimple but does in ninjastylee and leaves insufficient evidence for the jury to decide he did it - Hmmm they can't prove it so NOT GUILTY
3) Xordium just face plants again and doesn't drive up to Stoke with a sawnoff - Innocent (well of this anyway).
Well for argument sake, lets say the key points of evidence didn't convince a Jury, he was only being prosecuted against being guilty so only defense arguments to the prosecution were heard. Therefore, the case is heard from the prosecution and subsequent defense is a reflection upon the charges levied not necessarily every corner of every possibility is covered.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,742
A jury can't find you innocent if that's what you're asking, otherwise what everyone else said.
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
FFS
So is number 2 also innocent?
(I think they are different but willing to be proved wrong).
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...s?/the-human-rights-act/right-to-a-fair-trial
Right, as stated by a few of us, you are:-
Right, as stated by a few of us, you are:-
If you are not found guilty you are still presumed to be innocent. It's absolutely enshrined in UK law.
No, I quite clearly differentiated it! **** it I am going for option 1 now ******** to it.
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
So why has Barry George, who was acquitted, got to prove his innocence before he can get compensation?