No, just 'not guilty'
He wasn't standing trial to prove innocence, there just wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt.
Not Guilty v Innocent
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
No, just 'not guilty'
He wasn't standing trial to prove innocence, there just wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt.
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,346
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
No, I quite clearly differentiated it! **** it I am going for option 1 now ******** to it.
Right then, so we agree but Jokester above doesn't.
His innocence was not assessed at trial - it was presumed - his actions were assessed for his culpability. Completely different null hypothesis.
Edit: RE Jokester's comment: As I stated in my first posts - not-guilty is specific to a singular event and judgement - innocent is a theoretical concept applied for fairness.
Last edited:
Because the issue of compensation is separate to that of his legal guilt. He is an innocent man. The government may be breaching his human rights by not giving him compensation, but they are not obliged to give people who suffer miscarriages of justices compensation.
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,346
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
AND THIS IS WHY I'M STICKING WITH MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND PERSONAL INJURY.
It's more straight forward.
Bedtime.
It's more straight forward.
Bedtime.
I believe the issue was it was reasonable for the jury to find him guilty therefore it's not the courts "fault" for want of a better word.
He would get compensation if they'd done the job badly or misdirected the jury so that they were responsible for him being found guilty rather than it being the jury's decision
I might as well be reading Chinese
So is Not Guilty equal to Innocent?
no
as far as I understand it you are presumed innocent until proven guilty - as per the other post the court finds you guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) or not guilty
so it could be likely someone is guilty but if it isn't shown beyond reasonable doubt then they're 'not guilty'
surely he goes back to being presumed innocent but has not proved innocence only not being guilty.
Haha. Reverse it where there is an absence of presumption of innocence eg rendition - does that then make people guilty or not guilty or do we still need to assess that. It hasn't suddenly changed their guilt it means someone has made a socioethical judgement and then enforced it. When previous offenses are taken into account that removes the notion of innocent doesn't it but we can then still get a verdict of not-guilty after both sides have presented their proof.
Murder is a criminal charge, to be convicted of a criminal charge it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed, lets say for simplicity's sake this is a 99%+ chance. Barry George was found not guilty therefore there the jury deemed there to be less than a 99% chance that he committed the crime based on the evidence presented.
However suing for compensation is a civil action which uses the "balance of probabilities" rather than proving "beyond reasonable doubt". Again for simplicity's sake lets assume this means to be successful in winning a civil case that you must prove there was a 50%+ chance that x happened.
As Barry was deemed not guilty but was unsuccessful in suing for compensation you could therefore conclude there was between a 50% and 99% chance he committed the crime.
A very arbitrary way of looking at things but hopefully explains the difference between civil and criminal law.
He doesn't need to prove his innocence. It's a fundamental human right enshrined in UK & EU law that he is considered an innocent man.
Nothing like a bit of visual representation!
When being tried for a criminal offence (that is not strict liability), you are found guilty or not guilty as follows. Red equals jail time.
<------------------------------------------------------------ not guilty ------------------------------------------------------------ > <---- guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) --->
This is the same as:
<---- innocent (beyond all reasonable doubt) ---><------------ cannot be certain if innocent or guilty ----------><---- guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) --->
To avoid being found guilty you do not have to be innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.
When being tried for a criminal offence (that is not strict liability), you are found guilty or not guilty as follows. Red equals jail time.
<------------------------------------------------------------ not guilty ------------------------------------------------------------ > <---- guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) --->
This is the same as:
<---- innocent (beyond all reasonable doubt) ---><------------ cannot be certain if innocent or guilty ----------><---- guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) --->
To avoid being found guilty you do not have to be innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.
That's not actually totally correct. People charged with offences should be presumed innocent until proven guilty they are not considered innocent people. They are considered innocent in the respect to the charge.
Well yes, if they've not been accused of anything else.
Indeed, but you are considered innocent even if you are in that middle bit. The exception to this is the "Not Proven" verdict in Scotland which fills a grey area in between guilty and not guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 2,634
I'm guilty of being completely and 100% innocent.
He doesn't have to prove his innocence to avoid conviction, only that he's not guilty. Therefore he returns to being presumed innocent, which is not the same as innocent.
I think it's quite simple, you're just mixing parts up.
First, there is a difference between the legal definitions of "not guilty" and "innocent" and the moral or dictionary definitions.
Legal:
1. A person is not guilty until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is.
2. Not guilty means that the person is acquitted and is therefore legally innocent
3. Innocent and not guilty are therefore interchangeable, legally speaking
Moral:
1. A person is not guilty until proven otherwise
2. However, innocent implies that the person has actually not done something
3. There is therefore a gap between guilty and innocent (i.e. "unclear"). This could be termed "not guilty", although is perhaps better termed as being undefined
Sorry but your wrong on both points, the prosecution needs to prove guilt, that is the fundamental requirement of UK law.
And as this guy says:-
And this article says:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
You are absolutely considered to be innocent of a crime if you are found not guilty. Otherwise you are talking about no smoke without fire.
I agree with thenewoc and I think he is right on both points save for a couple of subtle but important amendments (that (a) you do not have to prove innocence, you only have to demonstrate you are not guilty, and (b) being considered innocent is not the same as being certain one is innocent - see below)
Being considered innocent is the same as being found 'not guilty', but that is not the same as being certain (i.e. being beyond all reasonable doubt) that one is innocent.
Being considered innocent is the same as being found 'not guilty', but that is not the same as being certain (i.e. being beyond all reasonable doubt) that one is innocent.
Last edited: