What's the difference between proving that someone is guilty or proving that someone is innocent?

Question

Why is this distinction such an important concept in our legal system?

Answer 1

Because technically innocence does not have to be proved, it is presumed.

Answer 2

Innocence must be presumed because as an absence of guilt it is a null case, and a null case can never be proved.

That seem to be getting overlooked more and more.

Not being able to demonstrate the null case is what makes a lot of people fall into bad decisions. As an example, prove that routine maintenance will make a machine run longer. Prove that following safety regulations prevents accidents. Prove that you never broke any law. Can't be done.

Answer 3

The difference is like trying to prove a negative, sometimes a person can appear to be guilty without having done anything wrong or appear innocent but they are the perpetrator. Sometimes this is due to human empathetic nature or due to their non-direct involvement. Also they may not have committed the crime themselves but set it in motion so that the momentum could not stop without intervening forces. In our legal system you can be acquitted just by the lack of evidence or by the benefit of doubt, you may not be innocent but no-one could prove beyond the doubt that you did it.

Answer 4

They aren't tried in a court! Those who have been tried and are in prison have a much more difficult time proving they are innocent, usually because evidence disappears as well as people!

I imagine Gitmo is a place that you are guilty until proved innocent! I imagine their are other regimes, however they don't use terms like Beyond a Reasonable Doubt!

Answer 5

The distinction is guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent in the criminal justice system.

Answer 6

Because I believe somewhere in the Constitution and amendments there to, say that guilt must be proven by the accusing party.

Answer 7

Burden of proof is on the plaintif.