Not Guilty v Innocent

Xordium · 10 Jun 2015 at 08:09

Jokester said:
Well yes, if they've not been accused of anything else.

Well no actually there is an important distinction there and you need to think about where the actual concepts came from and what their influences were ie people would not be seen as innocent by default because that would preclude original sin. That is why it is innocent to a specific accusation. Not a default state of being innocent. Hence, why I've consistently said guilt is specific.

Jokester said:
the prosecution needs to prove guilt, that is the fundamental requirement of UK law..

It does but you are almost talking related to US law. UK law is different and there is a onus on the defence to supply evidence too - there are also situations that I have already listed which make UK law and US law fundamentally different on the notion of "innocence" because we can taint that "innocence" with prior offense.

Orionaut · 10 Jun 2015 at 08:19

Jokester said:
You are absolutely considered to be innocent of a crime if you are found not guilty.

Except that the removal of double jeopardy protection (in the UK) basically blows that out of the water.

Xordium · 10 Jun 2015 at 08:33

Orionaut said:
Except that the removal of double jeopardy protection (in the UK) basically blows that out of the water.

Exactly, there is a fundamental difference between:

You are innocent.
We are going to start from the default position that you are innocent of the specific accusation and attempt to demonstrate otherwise.

The later includes the possibility for retrial when there is substantial new evidence that may have changed the decision of the previous judgement. The notion also allows for moving up a judicial chain. You are not found innocent you are found guilty or not guilty although someone else may weigh the evidence and the supporting legal framework differently.

Soundood · 10 Jun 2015 at 08:38

Glaucus said:
Is there actually anything other than guilty/not guilty in court?

not in England and Wales, in Scotland we have the 'Not Proven' which basically means we think the accused is guilty, but you have not given us enough to convict.

Orionaut · 10 Jun 2015 at 08:57

Xordium said:
The later includes the possibility for retrial when there is substantial new evidence that may have changed the decision of the previous judgement.

The evidence doesn't even have to be that substantial.

ISTR a saying amongst legal scholars "Hard cases make bad law!"

The removal of the double jeopardy protection was done primarily to meet a political agenda and is to my mind a good example of this!

Xordium · 10 Jun 2015 at 09:24

Orionaut said:
The evidence doesn't even have to be that substantial.

I thought it has to be of sufficient quantity or quality to indicate the previous verdict may have been altered.

Another thing I thought of as to the notion of innocence as a prior assumption is that it is questioned in cases where a man is accused of rape. If you can demonstrate that a sexual act has occurred then there is a burden on the defence to demonstrate the man had obtained consent - therefore in that case he has to demonstrate his innocence it is not assumed.

grumpysculler · 10 Jun 2015 at 09:34

Jokester said:
Scotland where you can also have not proven, where there is a doubt over someone's innocence.

aka "Not guilty and don't do it again"

robgmun · 10 Jun 2015 at 09:36

Repta said:
If you are innocent until proven guilty the not guilty = innocent as far as the law is concerned

This +1000

Any other answer is one from the dullards who want to impart vigilante justice based on nothing.

If he is found not guilty, he is innocent. Not matter how much others want him to be not innocent, they have just get over it.

robgmun · 10 Jun 2015 at 09:37

Jokester said:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...s?/the-human-rights-act/right-to-a-fair-trial

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.

This should really be the last word. No other opinion matters

Zatoichi.uK · 10 Jun 2015 at 09:49

The law only addresses guilt. Defendants are either guilty or not guilty and innocence is not considered.

Much the same as theistic claims of a Gods existence. Theists claims a God does exist, atheists do not accept this claim, rather than assert one does not exist.

robgmun · 10 Jun 2015 at 11:15

Zatoichi.uK said:
The law only addresses guilt. Defendants are either guilty or not guilty and innocence is not considered.

Just plan wrong

Jokester said:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...s?/the-human-rights-act/right-to-a-fair-trial

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.

End of story

[FnG]magnolia · 10 Jun 2015 at 11:38

It'd be interesting for posters to state their credentials when decreeing that we are at the 'end of the story' and things you know nothing about are 'just plain wrong', rob.

For the 3 people I've counted posting in this thread who actually work in Law - is there general debate around the OP's question or is this relegated to armchair interneters?

robgmun · 10 Jun 2015 at 11:51

[FnG]magnolia;28153757 said:
It'd be interesting for posters to state their credentials when decreeing that we are at the 'end of the story' and things you know nothing about are 'just plain wrong', rob.

For the 3 people I've counted posting in this thread who actually work in Law - is there general debate around the OP's question or is this relegated to armchair interneters?

Or maybe the fact they are putting in there personal beliefs ahead of the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. As many people can harp on about it as they wish but doesn't change basic facts

trilobite · 10 Jun 2015 at 12:56

Xordium said:
Another thing I thought of as to the notion of innocence as a prior assumption is that it is questioned in cases where a man is accused of rape. If you can demonstrate that a sexual act has occurred then there is a burden on the defence to demonstrate the man had obtained consent - therefore in that case he has to demonstrate his innocence it is not assumed.

This is wrong, to be convicted of rape the Crown must prove that there was penetration, that there was no consent AND that the defendant did not hold a reasonable belief in consent; there is no requirement for the defendant to prove anything.

As for the OP you remain innocent unless guilt is proved, as you need not prove innocence, it is a state of not having the allegation against you proved.
This is a purely Criminal Law concept. If I kill someone but m never caught, I remain innocent, legally, because nothing has been proved; however if you saw me do it, or I confessed it to you, you would probably not think I was innocent of the act.

The compensation issue has been complicated by recent changes which require a victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove not only that they should not have been convicted, but that they did not in fact do the act, (ie in layman's terms are innocent" Confusingly the law now requires you to prove you are innocent "beyond reasonable doubt" before compensation is payable, although there is no forum for contesting this claim. This was a political change.

But remember if you are remanded in custody for a crime you are later acquitted of, or which is dropped before you get to court, there is no compensation.

Xordium · 10 Jun 2015 at 14:23

trilobite said:
This is wrong, to be convicted of rape the Crown must prove that there was penetration, that there was no consent AND that the defendant did not hold a reasonable belief in consent; there is no requirement for the defendant to prove anything.

This is not the US the sole burden is not on the prosecution. The burden is on the defendant to also demonstrate that he was of the belief there was valid consent. Therefore, this is removed from the notion of innocence in regards to committing the crime. This is difference from the burden placed on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt.

To clarify - if we know penetration took place and we know the girl was extremely drunk - then the footballer really needs to demonstrate the he did gain consent. Although he gets innocence from the charge in respect to his basic rights it does actually preclude the fact he isn't really being treated as innocent as he has been asked to demonstrate why the accusers are wrong. That really is not true assumed innocence is it.

RDM · 10 Jun 2015 at 14:32

robgmun said:
Or maybe the fact they are putting in there personal beliefs ahead of the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. As many people can harp on about it as they wish but doesn't change basic facts

Unless the basic facts are wrong? As someone more versed in the subject may be able to explain.

trilobite · 10 Jun 2015 at 14:38

Xordium said:
This is not the US the sole burden is not on the prosecution. The burden is on the defendant to also demonstrate that he was of the belief there was a valid consent.

No he doesn't. The law is clear. the Crown must prove that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent, not that he must prove that he did.

There are presumptions about consent: See S75-76 of SOA 2003

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/76
S75 Evidential presumptions: These only apply if the Crown have proved the circumstances exist, ie the complainant was asleep, if the Defence then dispute the issue and raise some evidence the Crown then have to disprove that there was no consent/reasonable belief in consent.

S76 contains conclusive presumptions where if it is proved that you impersonate someone else etc then it is proved that the complainant did not consent.

jumpy · 10 Jun 2015 at 14:40

trilobite said:
The compensation issue has been complicated by recent changes which require a victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove not only that they should not have been convicted, but that they did not in fact do the act, (ie in layman's terms are innocent" Confusingly the law now requires you to prove you are innocent "beyond reasonable doubt" before compensation is payable, although there is no forum for contesting this claim. This was a political change.

But remember if you are remanded in custody for a crime you are later acquitted of, or which is dropped before you get to court, there is no compensation.

To my way of thinking, you should be compensated if you suffer imprisonment, on remand or otherwise, for something you are not guilty of, putting your life and affairs into total disarray, and in some cases beyond repair. 'Oh, sorry for ruining all of your ****. You can go now' is not good enough.

The 'beyond reasonable doubt' is contemptible chicanery at best.

Xordium · 10 Jun 2015 at 14:46

trilobite said:
No he doesn't. The law is clear. the Crown must prove that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent, not that he must prove that he did.

There are presumptions about consent: See S75-76 of SOA 2003

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/76
S75 Evidential presumptions: These only apply if the Crown have proved the circumstances exist, ie the complainant was asleep, if the Defence then dispute the issue and raise some evidence the Crown then have to disprove that there was no consent/reasonable belief in consent.

S76 contains conclusive presumptions where if it is proved that you impersonate someone else etc then it is proved that the complainant did not consent.

I was typing an edit when you did that. Thanks for the links it explains that well. I was thinking as I said above it is almost like there was a potential caveat. But reading that it's quite clear in how they actually phrase it. Cheers again always good to learn something because I did think it look different to what one would expect.

Would you care to comment then how rendition would fit into this notion of innocent of crime. Interested to hear your stance on this.

div0 · 10 Jun 2015 at 14:53

Jokester said:
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.

This basically.

In England, a guilty verdict means that the person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. A not guilty verdict just means that they are either totally innocent, or that there was sufficient doubt to mean that a guilty verdict could not be reached. But in being found not guilty, you are effectively found to be innocent.

In Scotland, they try to handle the grey area with a 'not proven' verdict. Such a verdict would be given if it was felt that the person wasn't innocent, but equally couldn't be proven that they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt either.