# The Opposite of Guilty **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 10, 2007, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123 "2007-08-10T12:41:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/1 "2007-08-10T12:41:53Z")
No, I don’t mean “innocent.” Is there a word that describes the following situation? If you are not supposed to do X, and you do it anyway, you are “guilty of X.” If you _are_ supposed to do Y, and you do it, you are “??? of Y.” ---
**Author:** ![kifler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/94ad74/32.png) [@kifler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kifler)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/2 "2007-08-10T12:45:49Z")
Guilty of not doing Y? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/3 "2007-08-10T12:46:52Z")
You are “responsible for” Y. ---
**Author:** ![Staggerlee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/staggerlee/32/3134_2.png) [@Staggerlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staggerlee)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/4 "2007-08-10T14:00:11Z")
Negligent, perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/5 "2007-08-10T14:10:46Z")
[QUOTE=Staggerlee] Negligent, perhaps. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that’s the right word. If you are supposed to “pay your taxes”, and you do it, you aren’t negligent for “paying your taxes”. “Compliant”, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/6 "2007-08-10T14:30:41Z")
evasion? Al Capone was supposed to pay his taxes, but didn’t. He was sent to prison for tax evasion. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/7 "2007-08-10T14:50:48Z")
I guess the opposite of “guilty of” would be “in compliance with the duty to”. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/8 "2007-08-10T14:57:17Z")
Right. I’d say some form of “comply.” \*E.g., \* > [@](#): > > Birmingham complied with HUD’s regulations, procedures, and instructions in the underwriting of Federal Housing Administration-insured loans. [http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/files/ig651015.pdf](http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/files/ig651015.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/9 "2007-08-10T16:43:03Z")
I’d go with “compliant,” or maybe “acquiescent.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/10 "2007-08-10T17:09:22Z")
What I don’t get is : being found “Not Guilty” (ala OJ Simpson) in a criminal trial; then being found “responsible” in a civil trial. Does “responsible” mean “caused”? And does causality prove guilt? I’ll leave it for the legal experts to explain the differences. I can’t seem to reconcile the two. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/11 "2007-08-10T17:28:44Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] What I don’t get is : being found “Not Guilty” (ala OJ Simpson) in a criminal trial; then being found “responsible” in a civil trial. Does “responsible” mean “caused”? And does causality prove guilt? I’ll leave it for the legal experts to explain the differences. I can’t seem to reconcile the two. [/QUOTE] The difference stems from the fact that there are two separate burdens of proof. In the criminal trial, for OJ to be sent to jail, he would have had to have been found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In the civil trial, for OJ to have been levied monetary damages, he would have had to have been found liable by “a preponderance of the evidence.” The former suggests a 99% certainty (to the extent that percentages are relevant) of responsibility; the latter suggests a 51% certainty of responsibility. The much lower standard of proof is what distinguishes the two. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/12 "2007-08-10T23:38:52Z")
[QUOTE=HeyHomie] **The Opposite of Guilty** No, I don’t mean “innocent.” [/QUOTE] Bit of a nitpick, but the opposite of “Guilty” is “Not Guilty”. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2007, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/13 "2007-08-10T23:41:30Z")
In legal terms, the opposite of “guilty” is “not guilty” because YOU, the accused, are no longer capable of being “innocent”. Once you are accused, you are either guilty or not guilty. Innocent is a word for those not accused. I know it’s splitting hairs, but that’s the technical difference. - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/14 "2007-08-11T00:01:58Z")
I’m currently reading “Helter Skelter” for the first time, and Bugliosi has a footnote that says, in essence, that “Not Guilty” is not the same thing as “Innocent.” The jury can full well believe that the defendant _did_ the crime, but they are forced to decide whether or not the People have _proven_ that the defendant did it. Being GQ, I’ll refrain from posting my opinion about the O.J. case. ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/15 "2007-08-11T00:08:16Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > In legal terms, the opposite of “guilty” is “not guilty” because YOU, the accused, are no longer capable of being “innocent”. Once you are accused, you are either guilty or not guilty. Innocent is a word for those not accused. I know it’s splitting hairs, but that’s the technical difference. This Law Dictionary doesn’t mention a technical difference between [_innocent_](http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=969&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C) and [_not guilty_](http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1348&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C). I read the definitions as synonymical. Am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/16 "2007-08-11T00:41:07Z")
[hijack] FWIW, in Scotland, a criminal trial may end in one of **three** verdicts: ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’, or [‘not proven’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven): > [@](#): > > A not proven verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury (depending on the kind of trial) does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant’s innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/17 "2007-08-11T06:31:57Z")
You guys do understand that you’re hijacking this thread, right? Did you even read the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/18 "2007-08-11T09:06:26Z")
Not an unusual occurrence by any means. I’m sure people have read the OP. However, when there doesn’t seem to be a definitive answer to a particular question, they tend to chip in with comments on the periphery. Come to think of it, they do this even when there **is** a definitive answer. Such is life. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/19 "2007-08-11T09:26:07Z")
If you are supposed to do Y, it’s implied you have a duty to do Y. Thus, failure makes you _derelict_ of Y. Various online dictionaries support me on this, though I don’t expect the phrasing is that common. More likely, I expect, is the longer and somewhat redundant “you are derelict in your duty to do Y”. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2007, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123/20 "2007-08-11T10:34:35Z")
[QUOTE=Atomicktom] The difference stems from the fact that there are two separate burdens of proof. In the criminal trial, for OJ to be sent to jail, he would have had to have been found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In the civil trial, for OJ to have been levied monetary damages, he would have had to have been found liable by "a preponderance of the evidence."s The former suggests a 99% certainty (to the extent that percentages are relevant) of responsibility; the latter suggests a 51% certainty of responsibility. The much lower standard of proof is what distinguishes the two. [/QUOTE] I’m well aware of this, but I still don’t understand the discrepancy. Or rather, it seems like everyone thinks any trial is an attempt to determine “what did someone do” or “not do.” This difference between civil and criminal trials makes the question really different: “What should we do to this person?” It’s kind of like a parent who perceives some problem with a child and doesn’t really know what actually happened. So the parent makes a decision to discipline the child, regardless of what really happened. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-opposite-of-guilty/415123.md?page=2)