What's the difference between not guilty and innocent?
i have to write a essay about it but dont know enough difference to write a good essay
innocent means someone did not commit a crime.
Not guilty, as far as a court finding, just means the court did not find someone guilty.
Someone can be found not guilty, but that does not make them innocent. If they killed someone, but were found not guilty, they still committed the crime, so theoretically they were not innocent.
That is my point of view.
Not guilty simply means that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that the defendant could not have done the crime. A defendant could have done the crime, yet be found not guilty because his/her guilt cannot be conclusively proved. Usually criminal cases end in a guilty/not guilty verdict as our legal system is based on proving guilt, not innocence.
Innocent means that you did not do the crime. Usually referred to as 'factually innocent'. Not guilty means a different thing. Not guilty means that there was a reasonable doubt about your guilt.
'Not guilty' means the court of law doesn't have enough evidence to proof their guilt. Even though, they could be. 'Innocent' means that they are truly not guilty- even outside the court of law.
Not Guilty is a verdict.
Innocence is a state of being. When someone is innocent, the did not do the crime. When someone is found not guilty, they may have committed the crime, but the jury did not find them guilty.
Not guilty simply means that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. Innocent means there is enough proof that the defendant COULD NOT have done it. The Simpson case is a good example. Although he was found NOT GUILTY there was enough to convict him on wrongful death in a civil suit. Hope this helps.
Innocent means the person did not commit the crime, or was legally allowed to perform actions in those particular circumstances that would be criminal in other situations.
Not guilty means the person was not convicted. Usually because the prosecution failed to prove their case sufficiently.
Someone may be innocent and still get convicted. And some may not be found 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' and still not be innocent.
not guilty means not enough evidence to convict even though they may well be guilty. Innocent means the courts could not prove they are guilty or they are in fact innocent.
Not Guilty means the lawyer used the law to get you off.
Innocent means you didn't do anything wrong. (But had to pay a Lawyer anyway.)
The two terms are used interchangeably by the press and the rest of the public, but there is a difference in legal principle. Criminal courts do not actually prove innocence when they let a defendent go, they merely fail to prove any guilt. In other words, 'not guilty' is just another way of saying 'charges not proven', and the person could still have really committed the crime but the court just couldn't find the necessary evidence in order to convict him. This is all because in the U.S. we give the accused the benefit of the doubt and make it the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove any charges the police make, otherwise the government could simply put anybody in jail on any ridiculous whim and a lot more innocent people would wind up getting punished if the court was required to make them prove their innocence before letting them go.
'Beyond a reasonable doubt.'
If you didn't do it you're innocent.
If you did it but the prosecution could not 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' the jury decided not guilty.
If you did it and the jury agreed with the prosecution, you're guilty as charged.
The terms are almost identicle and usually used interchangeably. But in legal, medical, and certain other cases, words have very definite meanings and cannot be used indiscriminately. Grammar is important too, as is the language the contract is drawn in.
Not guilty means that there's not enough proof to find someone innocent, but there's still too much doubt to find them guilty...if that makes sense.
It's sort of the grey patch between guilty and innocent
They are not the same thing. When it comes to pleading a case, most likely an attorney may have somebody plead 'not guilty' -- and that just means that the prosecution must prove the allegations in the indictment or criminal information.
When a jury reaches a determination of 'not guilty', in a lot of cases it means that the prosecution has not proven its case.
It is possible that somebody may be found 'not guilty' by a court in a criminal proceeding, but later may be sued in a civil court and found to be responsible. That is apparently what happened in the case of O. J. Simpson.
A person is 'innocent' if they are not responsible. However, innocence is a 'term of art' and is not used that much in a court of law. It is possible for an 'innocent' person to be found 'guilty.' DNA evidence is being used to some degree to free the 'innocent' who were not 'not guilty' but were convicted on 'circumstantial' evidence.
Does it seem that we are playing semantic games with these words, perhaps. Be mindful of the fact that lawyers, politicians, and journalists do play games with the meanings of words.
I believe innocent means that one is innocent and/or did not commit the accused act. Not guilty, on the other hand, implies that one is not liable, although one may have engaged in the accused act.