The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Innocent vs. Not Guilty
sligmasta
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I was having a discussion with a friend, and he asserted that juries could find a defendant guilty, not guilty, or innocent.
I've never heard of someone being pronounced innocent, because that's not the function of a criminal case as I understand it. As I was taught, the prosecution needs to prove guilt, yet the defense need not prove anything, as the burden is on the prosecution.
Any citation I could show to him for an answer, be it one way or the other would be helpful as well.
I've never heard of someone being pronounced innocent, because that's not the function of a criminal case as I understand it. As I was taught, the prosecution needs to prove guilt, yet the defense need not prove anything, as the burden is on the prosecution.
Any citation I could show to him for an answer, be it one way or the other would be helpful as well.
sligmasta on
0
Posts
I saw that too, but that's really more of a philosophical discussion.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule11.htm
That being said, I just want something I can show him that he will have to accept, or look a fool. unfortunately my google fu has failed me in this.
Edit: that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for BlochWave. thank you.
Tell him that, since he worked for a judge, he should know arguing from authority is pretty stupid and he needs to back up HIS claim, not the other way around.
Innocent means you actually didn't commit the crime. This has absolutely nothing to do with being guilty or not-guilty.
Guilty means a jury of your peers has determined that there was enough evidence or argumentation presented to convince you that the defendant probably committed the crime (by satisfying whatever the burden of proof is in a particular court).
Not guilty means a jury of your peers has determined that there was not enough evidence or argumentation presented to convince you that the defending probably committed the crime (by failing to satisfy whatever the burden of proof was).
I think that's the rub. We ask our juries to determine guilt by a defined set of parameters which the evidence and argumentation will or will not satisfy. 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' and etc.
In the latter two cases your actual innocence has nothing to do with the topic.
http://dictionary.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/factual/factual-innocence.html
The bar is much higher than what is required to find somebody "not guilty," to the point that it mostly only applies to cases where someone is charged, and then the charges dropped by the DA's office due to lack of evidence.
Interesting, this may be what he was referring to, but with less than total understanding. I'll bring this up to him when we next speak.
part 1
part 2
Yes, for example: in the Casey Anthony trial, Casey would have most certainly received a verdict of "not proven" rather than "not guilty".
Not guilty would just mean there was not enough evidence to prove you were guilty, so therefore you aren't.
Innocence is irrelevant.
Casey Anthony could come out and admit to the whole thing in the future and not necessarily be prosecutable, right?
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
But you are right, she could admit it and nothing could happen (criminally).
Correct.
You start any trial innocent, since you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are found "not guilty" then you maintain being innocent.
And yes. Since she has been found not guilty, she could some out and sign a major book deal where she says that she did kill her daughter and get away with it... which could be one reason she didn't take the stand. If she had, and said on the stand that she did not do it, and then afterward do a tell all book where she said she did, that would be perjury. That's a bit off topic.
TLDR- First two parts are all the matters.
Purpose of double jeopardy is preventing the government from simply trying cases over and over again until they get a conviction against someone they dislike.
Well..theres more too it than that. Ultimately, its a limitation of the state over the individual. The system is designed so that you(the invididual) are presumed innocent until the state has proven otherwise. If the state can re-try you ad infinitum, then they will always win, its simply a matter of time.
This happened in a lot of british colonial territories where local governers set up racketeering scams on the local populace. They would arrest you and charge you with a crime (usually involving commerce) and you would have to pay out in damages. From these damages, 1/3rd went to the judge, 1/3 went to the governer, and 1/3 went to the crown. So anyone you'd appeal to for an unfair trial had an economic incentive to ignore you, and the local law enforcement had a incentive to rip you off. Found innocent? Retry until guilty.
Thats why its part of the Constitution...its in direct response to some of the ass-hattery the colonist had been subjected to.
dammit somebody already said that.
This chick doesn't exactly seem well off, but her parents could probably sue. at least keep her from making money off interviews/book deals/etc. who knows.
There seems to be a pretty big codependent dysfunction there. I don't see them suing for wrongful death, especially since the mother's testimony was helpful to the defense.
If I'm not mistaken, if she backpedaled on that defense for the civil case, she could still face perjury charges for the story she gave at the criminal trial.
I think we're drifting into D&D territory now, though.
The root word, skuld, means guilt (in the sence of blame, not conscience), but also debt.
You know, I always wondered about that. I hear a lot "You can't prove a negative". But in the articles linked to above, someone was proven innocent. There was video evidence that they were somewhere else at the time of the crimes they were accused of. The detectives working the case found that it was physically impossible for him to be in two places at once, and thus he was proven innocent.
What you might be thinking is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
EDIT: This is interesting too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
They have a section about "You can't prove a negative". That guy was a philosopher, not a scientist or a mathematician, who frequently DO prove negatives. Apparently the logically sound argument is that you can prove a negative with sufficiently thorough investigation. Whats frequently left up for the debate, especially among scientist, is what constitutes a sufficiently thorough examination.
Didn't click the link, but the philospher I'm most familiar with that idea was speaking in ultimates, not specifics. You can't prove there's never been any alien visitation ever in the history of the world... but you sure can disprove specific claims. Which is where we are here, because the law deals with specifics - a specific person committing a specific crime. That can be proven negative*.
The important point is it doesn't have to be proven negative, that the law abiding citizen doesn't need to account for their movements and activities on a constant basis.
*-up to the point where you start entertaining certain philosophical arguments, but at that point you enter a dead zone where nothing is provable and the whole thing is an exercise in futility. Science and the law don't entertain those arguments. Even some branches of philosophy reject them outright simply because they serve little point except to cloud discussion.