Yup. Changing the wording would have the effect of, at least by implication, moving the burden to the accused to prove what they are asserting - that is, to prove their innocence.
This isn’t a mere matter of terminology - affirmatively proving one’s innocence is quite different than claiming the state has failed to prove one’s guilt.
I recall a one panel comic from a Playboy magazine from the mid 70s. There’s a judge in his robes sitting behind his tall desk speaking to a long haired mustachioed defendant standing before the desk. The caption?
“While there hasn’t been enough evidence to find you Guilty, it would be in poor taste for you to go around saying you’re Innocent.”
I agree that isn’t exactly what I wrote but it is essentially what I meant.
I wonder if the OP has ever been on a jury for a criminal case. When I was, the judge explained the difference between innocent and not guilty quite well.
Innocent is also a loaded word. Not guilty refers to a specific charge much better. Consider cases where a defendant is found guilty of a subset of charges and not guilty of the rest. Can he be called innocent in any sense?
Emmett Till’s killers would then technically be considered “innocent”. Definetely a horrible idea.
How can you say innocent is something we can’t know but guilty is? If guilt is measured by the degree to which the prosecution proves its case, then innocence can be the same but for the defense. Besides, that’s still arbitrary, so what if we can’t prove innocence? A person is still free, what difference does it make to you or anyone else?
We refer to people as “innocent until proven guilty” so whether or not we place the burden on the prosecution, a person is still innocent until a certain time in which they are not. To me, if the state can’t prove it, then they are innocent. You don’t need to look at what’s going on in the courtroom any differently than to accept that the defendant is innocent, which they already are before the case started
Those all describe gradations of the same set of facts. Its the same semantic argument that I discussed in the OP. And even those descriptions are mostly just made up. There is only guilty or not guilty, the jury doesn’t return a verdict of “he’s probably guilty but we can’t prove it”.
I could easily just say that I don’t see why “innocent” isn’t obviously as accurate as “not guilty”. The point is that the arbitrary line is drawn at not guilty when it shouldn’t be, since there’s no compelling data to say it should stop there. If anything, a compromise I’d support is for juries, judges, and lawyers to use “not guilty” and “innocent” interchangeably in all court documents
I have no problems with a “no contest” plea as it describes the actions of the defendant
I disagree because we’re referring to the charges leveled against him. He is in fact innocent of the charge of murder because factually (unfortunately) what he did was not considered murder. You’re erroneously looking at the actions committed rather than the charges filed. The court could easily say he’s innocent (of the charge of murder) and that would be equally accurate in your example
I disagree that it would shift the burden of proof, even rhetorically. “Innocent” can simply be used to describe the state of the defendant after and acquittal. There need be no change to the court system at all
Maybe the problem doesn’t exist, but I disagree that its less accurate and informative
They are arbitrary but not meaningless. The meaninglessness comes from the arbitrary nature but in fact the words themselves convey a meaning that is distinct. My contention is that “innocent” is much more clear, definitive, and simplistic while “not guilty” is less so and bespeaks a legalese that is purposefully unwelcoming
Like dracoi above, I believe you are referring to the actions of whatever crime occurred rather than the charges. A lot of accused people are not innocent of the actions, you mean. But they are innocent of the charges. That’s what I want to make clear, this should be a courtroom terminology change referring to the state of the defendant after the charges have been acquitted. I make no argument as to the defendant’s actions
Some people have mentioned that the meanings of trials would change if we used the word innocent instead of the current terminology. They feel that its wrong, dangerous, or improper because it may signal a shift to the defendant to provide burden of proof.
But consider this: calling a defendant simply not guilty because the state hasn’t proved the charges forever taints him with the equally dangerous inference that he simply fought off an incompetent prosecution. To me, one can easily say that a person is guilty of the charges but the state hasn’t been able to prove it, but he’s still realistically guilty, guilty, guilty! If a more competent prosecutor had been on the case, maybe we would have gotten him, so to speak. In this way, a person once charged can never be completely cleared. By using the word “innocent”, we can at least semantically and rhetorically make the mental jump from “he probably did it but the prosecution screwed up the case” to “he never did it and was innocent the whole time”. That, to me, is an equally valid concern
I think that’s a cop out. Once the prosecution loses its case, I think its fair to say that you can be declared innocent just as easily as you can be declared not guilty
I realize that. I just think that people can easily be said to be “innocent” of the charges just as easily as they can be “not guilty” of them
He’s as innocent of the charges as he is not guilty of them. My terminology change only speaks to his status regarding the charges not his actions
Different case. I wouldn’t change the criteria for civil cases. To me, its just as much of a contradiction to say he’s not guilty of murder in one court and guilty in another. I’ve no problems making the distinction that he would be innocent in one court but another court finds him guilty.
I’m not opposed to that on its face, but I haven’t put much thought into its consideration
I think you are only imagining that it would shift the burden of proof. Nothing about how the court works need be changed except for how we refer to defendants currently found “not guilty”. This claim that you and others make that it would radically shift the burden of proof is, I think, and imaginary fear. Plus, I think my response to why the current system also unfairly stigmatizes the defendants is a valid criticism of our system now
Never been selected. I wish I could be, I actually want to be on a jury. But there are many law talking guys on this board who I think could give an equally good explanation, I just disagree with it
And yes, I have no problems holding the belief that a defendant can be innocent of one subset of charges but guilty of others
To our sensibilities, yes. But as to the charges, they were definitely found innocent of them. And I would ask, does thinking about them being “not guilty” of the charges not also fill you with horror?
I’m sure you don’t ,but to the most rest of us, “innocent” just doesn’t mean the same thing as"not guilty" . “Not guilty” is a legal determination means the prosecution didn’t meet its burden , for whatever reason. “Innocent” is a factual determination meaning that the person actually didn’t commit the crime. If OJ committed acts meeting all the elements of the crime of murder , he would be factually guilty even if he were legally found not guilty after trial.
When you talk about “You don’t need to look at what’s going on in the courtroom any differently than to accept that the defendant is innocent, which they already are before the case started”, you’re forgetting an important piece. The defendant is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. I can presume you are a chair until you are proven to be a human. That doesn’t mean that you actually are a chair if the proof isn’t forthcoming.It just means my presumption is contrary to the facts.
I understand your view that one can arbitrarily assign any word we want to describe someone who is not found legally culpable for a particular act.
But as it is currently used, “not guilty” means that one cannot be punised for an accused act, for many possible reasons, among them the jury not having sufficient confidence that the accused did the thing he’s charged with.
The implication of “innocent” is that society has full confidence that someone did not do that particular act. In essence, that they were wrongly accused, fully exonerated, and the facts find them to be totally without fault or suspicion.
Under your system, you’d apply the word “innocent” to everyone in either category. Wouldn’t you find it useful to maintain a distinction between someone who may have committed a crime but the state could not prove the case (in current terms, not guilty) versus someone who is fully exonerated and simply could not have committed any wrongdoing whatsoever (in current terms, innocent)?
Wouldn’t it be good to understand the difference between those?
As someone said, if you think the two terms are the same why change at all?
But your second sentence shows you don’t understand the basis of our system. The defense doesn’t have to prove shit. They don’t even have to say a word and sometimes don’t. Innocence is not proved in court by anyone. It’s an important distinction and basically the entire foundation of our judicial system. If you can’t understand that then I think we are all just banging our heads against a wall trying to explain it.
I think it’s just shorthand for “not found guilty”.
This sounds a lot like a common misconception. People think that “In the US, you’re assumed guilty until proven innocent.” The truth is that in a trial you are considered innocent until proven guilty. Before the trial, you can be arrested, which is definitely not assumption of innocence. Of course, at that time you’re not assumed guilty either, you’re treated as a suspect.
Same caveat as above: this applies to the trial and punishment, but does not apply to all aspects of the legal system, as I’m sure you know.
The charge is that the person is guilty, the decision of ‘not guilty’ answers that charge directly.
I think this is a solution in search of a problem, and I think it arises from the false dichotomy that someone is either guilty or innocent. My first thought on this, which was already mentioned, was the OJ case. He was found not guilty, not because he was innocent–you won’t find very many people argue that he was innocent–but because the case failed to prove his guilt. Innocence is the opposite extreme on a spectrum, and I think most people would agree that it is possible to be somewhere between the legally defined line for guilt of a particular crime but not innocent.
Hell, there are plenty of times where people “get off on a technicality” and people get upset about it. Does it make sense to call that person innocent? What if someone is charged with First Degree Murder but they can’t prove premeditation but can prove everything else and get a conviction of Second Degree Murder. Does it make sense to say he is innocent of the former and guilt of the latter? Sure, it “works” but in that sense, how does it meaningfully work any better than “not guilty”?
Innocence has social baggage that “not guilty” doesn’t and all the justice system is concerned about is whether or not you cross that legally defined line that says you’re guilty. It doesn’t matter if you are 99% of the way there or absolutely innocent, there’s no need to make any other distinction than that the burden of proof was not met. Specifically, “innocent” means that you did not do it, whereas “not guilt” only means it was not proved. What if someone isn’t innocent, what if that person really did do it, but the prosecution just couldn’t prove it. We shouldn’t get into that game, and we don’t need to as not guilt covers it.
Sure, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was just trying to say that it’s… not quite a legal fiction, but a specific technical presumption for purposes of trial.
Mmm, no, I don’t think it would be radical, certainly not at first. Rather that it would be a very subtle, insidious, subliminal shift; that no matter how strenuously the judge instructs the jury on the burden of proof, when they sat down in the jury room and were asked to find a defendant “innocent” rather than “not guilty,” they’d be just a little bit less willing to give such a defendant the benefit of that reasonable doubt. Just a hunch; you’d have to do experiments to get a better handle on what this sort of change in terminology would really do.
Though: You say “currently found ‘not guilty’”. I hope I’m not misunderstanding you–if you’re talking about what we call them once the verdict is rendered and they’re back on the street, I honestly don’t care–call them innocent, chopped liver or blueberry pie, for all it matters to me. All I’m concerned about is the initial plea and the ultimate verdict.
IANAL But,it seems being found innocent rather than not guilty would open the door to lawsuits filed by the “innocent” defendant after the trial. They may be able to claim that the court should pay their legal fees because the innocent verdict implies they never should have been tried in the first place. In the era of frivolous lawsuits it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility.
It’s sort of trying to prove a negative in a way.
Your proposal conflicts with the basic premise that one is forbidden to lie in court.
In the United States, there is is a presumption of innocence. The judge or jury must assume a clean slate unless the state can provide sufficient evidence of guilt. However, there are also extremely strict laws against perjury (lying to the court). The laws are so strict, that a lawyer who knowingly allows his client to lie to the court risks disbarment. A client who actually committed the crime he is charged with would be committing perjury by pleading “innocent”; the attorney could not allow his client to plead anything at all!
It may sound merely semantic, but pleading “not-guilty” truly avoids this problem. They plead the truthful opinion that the state does not have the evidence to overturn the presumption of innocence. Actual innocence is irrelevant. The lawyers then must insist that all clients plead in this manner to avoid a backdoor admission of guilt among clients who cannot truthfully plead “innocent”.
Right. Finding someone “innocent” would be proving the did not commit the crime, rather than the prosecution failing to prove they did.
I’ve been wondering about something. Unfortunately in our society, merely being put on trial taints you as guilty in the eyes of many people. Suppose we maintained the currently “guilty” or “not guilty” verdicts, but after the verdict is delivered a not guilty defendant could request a ruling on “innocence”. The jury would be sent back into deliberations and if they decide the defendant did not commit the crime beyond any reasonable doubt, they return an “innocent” decision. The decision would have no legal significance beyond vindicating the defendant. Would that be an improvement?