No soup for you!!!

[Chris_F]

The concept of "innocent" is more restrictive then merely "not guilty".  The OJ case is a prime example.  "Not Guilty" means you don't go to jail.  OJ didn't go to jail.

BUT Ron Goldman's next of kin did successfully sue OJ for Ron's death.  If OJ were proven "innocent" instead of merely "not guilty" then there would be no way to implicate OJ.  "Innocent" takes more proof than "not guilty" to establish.

In general I think the courts want to stay out of declarations of innocence.  The court merely decides if punnishment is warranted.  "Not guilty" is good enough for that.  If the court were expected to decide between "not guilty" and "innocent" it could cause court cases to drag out much longer for no legal reason.  Why bother taking up everyone's time?

[Hagar]

We could argue for a year & not agree on this but I'll try just once more to explain how I see it. As I understand it, civil law is different from criminal law in several respects. The whole basis of US criminal law that the defendant is considered 'Innocent until proven Guilty'. We have all agreed that this puts the onus on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove the defendant's guilt. The defendant does not have to prove his/her innocence. There are two possible verdicts, Guilty or Not Guilty. If the verdict is Guilty the defendant would be pronounced guilty as charged. Therefore, if the verdict is Not Guilty the defendant must be innocent of the charges against him/her by default. No other interpretation is possible. The legal experts can twist it all they like but they cannot change that simple fact without a change in the law.

[TacitBlue]

I think the difference between not guilty and innocent is something like this- a defendant is not guilty if the prosecution cannot prove that they are guilty. A defendant is innocent if the prosecution drops the charges, basically saying "never mind, we know he didn't do it". The prosecution in a criminal case is usually responsible for finding the evidence with which to convict someone, so if they find something that proves conclusively that the defendant didn't commit the crime, then they must drop the case.

I'm no expert either, but I hope that is right. I'm sure someone will correct me if not.

[dcunning30]

There are two possible verdicts, Guilty or Not Guilty. If the verdict is Guilty the defendant would be pronounced guilty as charged. Therefore, if the verdict is Not Guilty the defendant must be innocent of the charges against him/her by default.

No, as you said your self, the person is not guilty.  Not guilty means the prosecution didn't successfuly prove that the defendent is guilty, so he's not guilty.  I've given you  several scenarios and examples how a person may be deemed not guilty, even though they are not innocent either.

[Hagar]

There are two possible verdicts, Guilty or Not Guilty. If the verdict is Guilty the defendant would be pronounced guilty as charged. Therefore, if the verdict is Not Guilty the defendant must be innocent of the charges against him/her by default.

No, as you said your self, the person is not guilty.

[dcunning30]

Sorry but if that is the case the 'Innocent until proven Guilty' concept is a complete farce.

I don't know about your country, but for all practical purposes in the US it is not a farce.

[Hagar]

Sorry but if that is the case the 'Innocent until proven Guilty' concept is a complete farce.

I don't know about your country, but for all practical purposes in the US it is not a farce.

[Chris_F]

There are two possible verdicts, Guilty or Not Guilty. If the verdict is Guilty the defendant would be pronounced guilty as charged. Therefore, if the verdict is Not Guilty the defendant must be innocent of the charges against him/her by default. No other interpretation is possible. .

The person can be innocent of the charges but not innocent of the act.  One can conclude that OJ was innocent of the charge of murder, however that does not mean that he didn't murder.  The court decided that OJ was not convicted of murder, technically meaning he was not found guilty.  But he did still murder two people.

Just as it's possible that a person in jail committed no crime (because they were falsely declared guilty) it is possible, and in fact much more likely, that someone declared not guilty is indeed guilty.  In the eyes of the law though OJ was "not guilty", he was not "innocent".

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation for the legal system however if I recall the language used is more well bounded.  I forget the exact wording but it's something like "presumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law".  This means that the law can not punish until guilt is proven.  Notice it does not place limits on individuals: I may conclude OJ is guilty even if his guilt isn't proven.  The slander example is a good one:  I may say OJ is guilty without risk of slandering him even though his guilt was not proven.  The civil case is also a good one: OJ could not use his lack of conviction as his only evidence against the civil case and subsequently lost, despite not being convicted.

[H]

I've only heard the term "Innocent until proven guilty" in vulgar usage -- a word short of how I've always seen the term written: "Presumed innocent until proven guilty."

8-)

[dcunning30]

It's quite simple. Innocent until proven guilty. A Not Guilty verdict means that guilt has not been proven. Ergo the defendant is innocent of the charges against him/her.

I see what's happening.