Do you know the difference between being declared Not Guilty and Innocent?

Question

Steven Trustcott was wrongfully convicted of rape and murder about 50 years ago, and sentenced to death - the youngest Canadian to receive such a sentence (which was commuted and he spent 10 years in prison). Recently, the atrocious justice(?) system in Canada - similar to our American system - declared him Not Guilty.

But a few days ago, the brother and father of the victim filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block any $$$$ compensation for Trustcott on the basis that he was not declared innocent of the crime.

Answer 1

Innocent means you didn't do the crime. The courts have no way to find a person innocent.

Not guilty means there was not enough evidence to prove that someone committed the crime. It does not mean they are innocent and does not mean they are not innocent.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

HI Suzi. It is an axiom of our legal system that a man is innocent until proved guilty. From that it follows that a man found not guilty is innocent. Suggestions have surfaced over the years that juries be entitled to return a third kind of verdict - that of "not proven". This verdict, if introduced, would quickly be known as the "yeah, right" verdict and would implicitly say, "We know you are as guilty as sin. If we abide by the directions of the judge and find according to the law, we can't pin it on you. But we will be damned if we will say you are innocent."

Answer 4

same as the difference between illegal and unlawful...unlawful means against the law, while illegal is a sick bird !!!!!!

Answer 5

First off Canadian system of justice is not like the United States OK lets clear the air there OK!
If u-r- found not guilty by a jury of ur peers than u-r- not guilty n that is a done deal it is like u can't be retried for the same crime twice which has been a lie in this country to say the least.
In this country the father or brother could not block compensation once someone was found innocent of a crime he/she did not commit n compensation that is the difference between this country n Canada,I guess were they can do that but not here.
Innocent is innocent by a judge,jury,or public opinion can it be anymore clearer than that.

Answer 6

Being declared "not guilty" just means that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (in the US) that the defendent committed the crime...even tho some on the jury may have thought him guilty...it was not proven.

Remember OJ? He later lost the civil case even tho he had been found "not guilty".

Answer 7

yeh the judge thinks you did it but you got found not guilty because your a good blagger.