Not Guilty v Innocent

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
57,338
Location
Stoke on Trent
This old chestnut again but it normally appears in threads and the actual answer gets lost.
Earlier I wound my work colleague up by saying there is a major difference between Not Guilty and Innocent but to be honest I haven't got a clue other than the countless times I see 'experts' post here about it.

So what is the definitive answer?
With sauces (brown or tomato).
 
My logic suggests Not guilty = no evidence of guilt.
Innocent = clear evidence of no involvement

In the court of law they are probably the same thing since you are innocent until proven guilty ?

Although you could claim not guilty for murder but admit guilt of a lesser charge like manslaughter etc?
 
Last edited:
Not guilty = no evidence the accused is guilty
Innocent = evidence of no involvement in the charges

That's how it is in a court of law.
 
If you are innocent until proven guilty the not guilty = innocent as far as the law is concerned
 
The entire cornerstone of our legal system is that you are innocent unless proven guilty, apart from Scotland where you can also have not proven, where there is a doubt over someone's innocence.
 
MatsyLR said:
Not guilty = no evidence the accused is guilty
Innocent = evidence of no involvement in the charges

That's how it is in a court of law.
Click to expand...

have you got an example of a court in the UK that has declared someone 'innocent' rather than 'not guilty'?
 
Blimey, that's an interesting read and I DGAF it's a DM link -

Barry George, a mentally disabled man, served 8 years for the murder of Jill Dando. Acquitted on appeal; retried and unanimously found NOT GUILTY. Told he has not PROVEN his innocence. He will not give up his fight for justice; for Jill and for himself:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bid-wrongly-convicted-Jill-Dandos-murder.html


ANYWAY, I still haven't had my definitive answer, does Not Guilty = Innocent or are they different?
 
Not guilty means you haven't been found culpable of a specific charge eg a specific theft or specific murder - this is why you have separate charges for differing things that may have occurred at the same time. Innocent means you are totally without any guilt. The former is specific to an event the latter is general state of being and the presumed default for people facing any charge for a specific event.

Edit: To expand - the presumption of innocence will level all men (and women) to face equal treatment - it is a declaration of non-assumption of character. We the judicial system will assess your guilt on the evidence that is placed before us you are at the moment without blemish every piece of evidence can tarnish that. At the end of the evaluation on the specific event we judge you either guilty or not-guilty. The innocence is a concept of being a state of assumption that the only things being judged are the actual evidence for the specific crime. Guilt can be measured innocence is something more academic and intangible.
 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
Not guilty means you haven't been found culpable of a specific charge eg a specific theft or specific murder - this is why you have separate charges for differing things that may have occurred at the same time. Innocent means you are totally without any guilt. The former is specific to an event the latter is general state of being and the presumed default for people facing any charge for a specific event.
Click to expand...

What if there is one charge and they are found Not Guilty, does that mean they are Innocent?

Has a Judge ever declared somebody is Innocent?
 
No, none of use are innocent are we Dimple, you should know that!

Judges assess guilt for specific things related to specific events. This is where the notion of guilt comes in - you are culpable for that thing eg theft, attack etc. That is why people who can not be held "culpable" through grounds of diminished responsibility can be found "responsible" but not ultimately "accountable".

Innocence is about the ethical basis upon which the judicial system is based upon dating back thousands of years the notion that it is for those who damn to prove guilt not for the accused to demonstrate their denial.

Guilt is a specific practical tangible test of blame.
Innocence is a general academic/theoretical concept.

Edit: Going back to a previous thread I think you may be referring to a poster consistently posted to say they "didn't find me guilty" - all that means is that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he did the crime. Despite his protestations and multiple prompts he wouldn't actually say whether he did the crime. Presuming we are being given absolute truth - what he was saying was "I did it but they couldn't prove it". Later when challenged he then said he didn't do the crime and it was impossible for him to have done so that therewithin brings in his "innocence". That is presuming we are being given the total truth - the courts do not have that luxury. The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt, as we said before, therefore realistically innocence is irrelevant as it is not being tested.
 
Last edited:
AS Xordium says one is an ethical measure the other more of a criminal measure.

For example if you were to, in self defense and using reasonable force, kill an intruder in your home that was attempting to harm you or your family you would probably be found 'not guilty' of murder. You would not however be innocent.
 
Dis86 said:
AS Xordium says one is an ethical measure the other more of a criminal measure.

For example if you were to, in self defense and using reasonable force, kill an intruder in your home that was attempting to harm you or your family you would probably be found 'not guilty' of murder. You would not however be innocent.
Click to expand...

you would be entirely innocent in that case :confused:
 
Legally you'd be innocent until proven guilty but there's also the term when a Jury is used of 'beyond reasonable doubt' No one defines what reasonable doubt is and some will take more convincing than others. So in some cases where someone gets off it may be because the Jury weren't convinced by enough of the evidence. Therefore whilst in the eyes of the law someone is innocent until proven guilty that just means there wasn't in some cases enough evidence or the right Jury to make a conviction stick. The main thing is that your not found innocent, just not guilty which is not the same. I've often thought this when seeing some news about someone not being found guilty and some of the comments about them being innocent being bound about. Surely just means the Crown were unable to secure a conviction.
 
Also, as far as being innocent until proven guilty that should be hammered home to any local authority issuing traffic related penalty's.
 
Dis86 said:
No. Because you have still killed another human being. Thus you are not innocent.
Click to expand...

nope, still innocent.

you were forced to defend yourself and others it wasn't your choice and you didn't go looking for it nor do it maliciously or unreasonably.

you would be innocent in the eyes of every rational person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom