If you are allowed to do it legally, then legally you are innocent of a crime.
Not Guilty v Innocent
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
No. You are not guilty of a crime
what would you be "guilty of" then?
I guess so, but when you can't be sure of winning even though you're innocent you may pay up to pay a reduced charge. Worst example of a miss use of powers in modern times.
In general legal terms they are to be considered synonymous, however in linguistic terms and peoples general acceptance innocent = did not do it, not guilty = not proven that you did.
In recent years as mentioned in the link above the legal difference has been tested in terms of compensation for wrongful imprisonment (as discussed at length in a thread here recently), which the UK government is judging based on the distinction between not found guilty and proven not guilty. This is being questioned by the ECHR, but two cases this week were upheld by the high court
In recent years as mentioned in the link above the legal difference has been tested in terms of compensation for wrongful imprisonment (as discussed at length in a thread here recently), which the UK government is judging based on the distinction between not found guilty and proven not guilty. This is being questioned by the ECHR, but two cases this week were upheld by the high court
It's important to add that a defendant is presumed innocent in law, not fact.
A finding or verdict of 'Not guilty' means only that the judge or jury could not be sure that the defendant committed the offence and therefore should not be held criminally liable. The only time that a court will positively assert a defendant's innocence in law and fact is when there has been a clear miscarriage of justice as this has important implications for any claim for compensation.
I guess that's why with a murder, sometimes someone is charged with man slaughter because the evidence to prove intent is not strong enough and doesn't double jeopardy stop you from being tried twice for the same crime.
Nothing. But innocent isn't the opposite of guilty. As I said one is a legal standing the other is moral/ ethical.
And you don't think it's morally acceptable to defend yourself from the threat of death?
I certainly think it's acceptable. But afterwards I wouldn't consider myself innocent of killing another human being.
That's not what you said before.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Criminal law: Beyond reasonable doubt
Civil law: Balance of probabilities
Civil law: Balance of probabilities
How is it not?
Because you've changed it from a moral question to one of an absolute fact by changing the semantics of what innocent means.
I haven't changed the semantics of what it means at all. As I said, I wouldn't consider myself innocent. I am not an absolute. It is my moral standing. My moral standing is probably very different to yours for example.
It's not. English common law is innocent until proven guilty. The legal system is guilty until proven innocent.
When a police officer charges you and you sign the bail sheet, you are agreeing to their terms and accept you are guilty and that you have to prove your innocence in a court. That is a legal process.
You literally sign away your common law rights and enter their man made (legal) system.
Not many people know this anymore because they conveniently no longer teach it in public education.
So you don't believe it morally acceptable to defend yourself against the threat of death?
...
I believe you can defend yourself against the threat of death without killing another person - not necessarily in all circumstances of course.