site banner
felipec  unbelief  1yr ago (felipec.substack.com)   Edited 1yr ago   2915 thread views

not-guilty is not the same as innocent

felipec.substack.com

In many discussions I'm pulled back to the distinction between not-guilty and innocent as a way to demonstrate how the burden of proof works and what the true default position should be in any given argument. A lot of people seem to not have any problem seeing the distinction, but many intelligent people for some reason don't see it.

In this article I explain why the distinction exists and why it matters, in particular why it matters in real-life scenarios, especially when people try to shift the burden of proof.

Essentially, in my view the universe we are talking about is {uncertain,guilty,innocent}, therefore not-guilty is guilty', which is {uncertain,innocent}. Therefore innocent ⇒ not-guilty, but not-guilty ⇏ innocent.

When O. J. Simpson was acquitted, that doesn’t mean he was found innocent, it means the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was found not-guilty, which is not the same as innocent. It very well could be that the jury found the truth of the matter uncertain.

This notion has implications in many real-life scenarios when people want to shift the burden of proof if you reject a claim when it's not substantiated. They wrongly assume you claim their claim is false (equivalent to innocent), when in truth all you are doing is staying in the default position (uncertain).

Rejecting the claim that a god exists is not the same as claim a god doesn't exist: it doesn't require a burden of proof because it's the default position. Agnosticism is the default position. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

-2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It matters to other people whether the evidence shows that the defendant is innocent or fails to show that he is guilty. We don't want to imprison someone accused of rape unless we are reasonably sure he is guilty, but a woman might want to avoid being alone with him unless she is pretty sure he is innocent. Similarly for many other crimes.

whether the evidence shows that the defendant is innocent or fails to show that he is guilty

That's the same thing. If it fails to show they are guilty, then they are innocent. At least as far as legal system is concerned. All the rest can be done on Twitter, that's what it's for.

a woman might want to avoid being alone with him unless she is pretty sure he is innocent

That's not a task for a legal system, and it can not reasonably perform it. Moreover, putting such task on it would make it very easy to permanently stain somebody's life with an accusation that is impossible to refute - if I say you're a rapist, and the court says "there's no proof but we're not 100% sure - who knows what happened there, we weren't there" then how you prove you're not? You can't sue the court for being not sure and demand them to make up their minds. And there's no process to make them sure. So you are now "possibly rapist" forever, even though there's absolutely no proof anybody could find of it.

That's the same thing. If it fails to show they are guilty, then they are innocent.

No, they're not. That's the whole point of the article. The legal system considers a person who has been acquitted to not be found guilty, which is why the jury renders the verdict quite literally "not guilty".

In the eyes of the law, it is the same. Every legal consequence is the same. Of course, everybody can have their own opinions - but that is no longer the domain of the law. That's my whole point - if we let the law talk about something that is beyond the lawful processes, we are asking for trouble.

In the eyes of the law, it is the same. Every legal consequence is the same.

And yet every legal resource out there claims they are most assuredly not the same.

Would you be able to support your assertion with some quotes from the said resources?

Just google: "not guilty" versus "innocent":

Cornell Law School:

As a verdict, not guilty means the fact finder finds that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. A not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant truly is innocent but rather that for legal purposes they will be found not guilty because the prosecution did not meet the burden.

MacDonald Law Office:

Being found “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict.

Court Review:

While in lay usage the term ‘not guilty’ is often synonymous with ‘innocent,’ in American criminal jurisprudence they are not the same. ‘Not guilty’ is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.

The Associated Press:

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

But the reality is that no amount of evidence is going make you accept you were wrong, is there?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats