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).
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Xordium said:
Well google it and you'll soon know! :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
Xordium said:
As Xordium bangs his head on the keyboard 3 things may occur next:

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
Click to expand...

FFS
So is number 2 also innocent?

(I think they are different but willing to be proved wrong).
 
robgmun said:
End of story
Click to expand...

but from what I've got from this thread is that you are missing out a word before innocent which is presumed.

You are presumed innocent unless you are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
If you are found not guilty then you are 'Presumed Innocent'.
Presumed innocent is not the same as innocent and to be innocent you have to prove it.
I finally get it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom