we just wondered if there was any difference between someone being "innocent" and "not guilty" (in a legal sense).
2007-10-18 09:55:15 · 40 answers · asked by Helen H 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In a legal sense, there is no difference. They mean the same thing. There is no option of a specific 'innocent' verdict, anywhere, as far as I know. 'Not Guilty' is the closest to any such thing and is distinctive from the perceived meaning because of the verdict system under the old Scottish legal system.
Years ago, in Scotland, the options available to a jury were to find a case against a suspect either 'proven' or 'not proven'. These were the equivalent verdicts to the more familiar 'guilty' and 'not guilty' but. after a landmark case, a jury was of the opinion the 'not proven' verdict was insufficient exoneration for the defendant and that the case against him had been brought maliciously and quite without warrant. They petitioned the judge specifically to declare the man not guilty of the charges giving special emphasis to his innocence. The judge allowed it and it's been a legal precedent, ever since.
The 'Not Proven' verdict is still available to juries under Scottish law. It does not mean innocent. "Not Guilty" does, although, in practical terms, they have the same effect.
Many people think a defendant can be re-tried for a case which a jury has declared 'not proven' but, that's wrong. They can't. I think that is how it SHOULD be but it just isn't.
2007-10-18 10:56:26 · answer #1 · answered by Frog Five 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This refers to verdicts given to Criminal Cases only!
Not Guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT i.e. there is no definitive proof (element of doubt) this person committed the crime.
Innocent means it is definitive that they did NOT commit the crime, for which they are accused.
Not Guilty carries a stigma because of this reason, however, saying that if the person is innocent, the same verdict applies i.e. Not Guilty.
There should be an Innocent verdict that wipes the slate, completely, clean! The Not Guilty verdict slate will always be a little dirty!
EDIT: This is for UK but the same principle applies worldwide, I'm sure!
There is a verdict of Not Proven in Scotland that would intimate that Not Guilty is Innocent but that is not the case and it still carries a stigma. It however, means you are more LIKELY to be innocent than it just being "it cannot be proved" hence Not Proven.
The only reason we have a Not Proven verdict is that it gives the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) the opportunity to retry the party or parties involved whereas Not Guilty verdicts prohibits the COPFS from retrying the case! For example, Double Jeopardy rule in USA would not be an issue in Scotland with Not Proven.
2007-10-18 10:14:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no finding of innocent in criminal law. A person may be found to be guilty or not guilty. Innocent is not a choice. A person may be not guilty and still have committed the crime. If the state fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person in not guilty. He or she may have done the crime, but because the state failed, get off.
2007-10-18 10:06:34 · answer #3 · answered by hensleyclaw 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
great question madhavi:) yOU know though these words sound synonimous but still there lies a "deep" difference !! Happiness can be found of things which may not even be beneficial to our spiritual or psychological aspect like we may go out & have our favourite dish & clothes etc., we would feel happy. But satisfaction comes from a kind of achievent, if we get good grades in studies we would get a positive feeling that says "hard word paid off" now thats more beneficial isn't it ;p[ Now peace.... I think it depends on what attitude we adopt towads the "activities" we do for "happiness" or either "satisfaction", peace actually exist in our self, it just has to be found by us. A person of ignorance might feel peace while a hard worker could be strresed. It can be even oposite to that . So peace needs to found by us.
2016-05-23 11:18:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One is used as a verdict one is the state of being while on trial. You're charged not guilty. But you're innocent until proven otherwise. Technically you can't be proven innocent because it's lack of evidence that couldn't get you convicted. You can still be guilty, it just couldn't be proved.
2007-10-18 09:59:01 · answer #5 · answered by kiki 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In legal terms, "not guilty" is a verdict reached from a criminal trial by a 12 member jury. Innocent means the accused literally had no knowledge of the wrong doing.
2007-10-18 10:00:25 · answer #6 · answered by nixdad96 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If a person is Innocent they did not commit the crime if a person is not guilty, they might have committed the crime but have been found not guilty by a court
2007-10-18 10:37:48 · answer #7 · answered by chris h 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Courts, whether a judge or jury rendering the verdict, do not find defendants innocent. Not guilty or guilty are the only two verdicts reached. Innocent is not used as a legal term in that way.
2007-10-18 10:03:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
None. If you're found "not guilty" in a court, then you're (in a legal sense, which is what you asked) innocent.
2007-10-18 14:23:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
innocent means you did not do something and that it can be proved. Not guilty means it cannot be proved that you did something.
In a criminal matters if you are not guilty you are considered innocent. In civil matters it is kind of different. I mean look at OJ even though he was found not guilty on criminal charges when he went to civil Court he lost. Not because the found that he was guilty they just said there was the possibility of it and for that he has to pay the Goldman's more money then he will make in the rest of his life.
oh semantics.
2007-10-18 10:00:43 · answer #10 · answered by thatoneguy 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋