doesn't necessarily mean innocent.

the evidence may have been insufficient, jury may have been clearly biased, the defense lawyer was brilliant, there's lots of things that come into play here.

You don't assume anything unless you have confirmed, physical and undeniable evidence to support your assumption and by that point it's not an assumption.

People can be guilt and found not guilty, the same way as they can be found not guilty but be guilty.

However just because there's evidence to suggest something doesn't mean that's what happened, the human brain makes and fills in patterns.

We're all guilty, but not of everything.

like i know that it doesn't necessarily mean that's the case, but i try to, because that seems the fairest to me, and you have to take some things on faith for the whole system to work

Not guilty means case unproven.

hey could have commited the crime but there was a lack of evidence or the evidence was not belived.


Many yrears ago a Black guy I knew was approached by two pilicemen. Knowing he would be searched he pulled a lump of dope out of his pocket and asked them, do you want to buy this?

When it went to court no one would believe the policemen's story.

On Saturday 5/28/16 - 5:06:32 PM Abzurd wrote: We're all guilty, but not of everything.

"Nobody is innocent, there are merely varying levels of guilt." that is what the black templars say. and they are right. no one on this planet is innocent at all, not even children or babies. all of us are horrible things, dirty and disgusting. if someone is named not guilty then that person is guilty themselves

what skyfish said

Although "not guilty" merely means that the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused party is guilty, I believe it's important that we treat people who have been found not guilty as if they had been found wholly innocent so they can in some way get on with their lives. Too many trials end in ruin for the accused no matter what the verdict, because the stink of the trial follows them for a long time afterwards.

On Wednesday 6/8/16 - 4:02:10 PM Cheese King wrote: Although "not guilty" merely means that the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused party is guilty, I believe it's important that we treat people who have been found not guilty as if they had been found wholly innocent so they can in some way get on with their lives. Too many trials end in ruin for the accused no matter what the verdict, because the stink of the trial follows them for a long time afterwards.

Kinda like OJ?

As others have said, I think you have to from a societal point of view. Innocent until (and when not) proven guilty and all that.

On an interpersonal level, people can make up their own minds. If a defendant is found not guilty of murdering someone's loved one due to a lack of sufficient evidence, I wouldn't expect that person to consider them innocent for all intents and purposes. The standard of evidence required in legal contexts is probably too high a bar to set in terms of who you personally should or shouldn't trust/believe.

still doesn't mean they're not guilty, they could have covered it up well....

It means the jury (or judge, in some cases) thought there wasn't enough *proof* of guilt. Perhaps the accused was guilty, there just wasn't enough evidence to be certain of it.

Scotland has an extra verdict option, "not proven", used if the jury think they *probably* did it, but they aren't sure enough to convict - "not guilty" was actually added later, to allow the jury to distinguish between actually believing the person is innocent and not being certain either way.

On Wednesday 6/8/16 - 4:02:10 PM Cheese King wrote: Although "not guilty" merely means that the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused party is guilty, I believe it's important that we treat people who have been found not guilty as if they had been found wholly innocent so they can in some way get on with their lives. Too many trials end in ruin for the accused no matter what the verdict, because the stink of the trial follows them for a long time afterwards.

On Wednesday 6/8/16 - 4:20:17 PM CowDung wrote: Kinda like OJ?

Ok, except OJ

http://espn.go.com/30for30/ojsimpso...

No, I'll base my own opinion according to the evidence I see

You're not supposed to "assume" ANYTHING, actually. You wait for the evidence to roll out. If you make an assumption, you're predetermining some type of verdict and since the human brain tends to work on a "well, I think this, ergo, I will only listen to what will confirm this belief" basis, this is counterproductive, and also the reason that prosecutors often demean and drag out the personal s3xual lives of rape victims (for example) for scrutiny- Not because it's relevant (it really isn't), but to appeal emotionally to a jury that wants to convict based on the assumption, "well, if this person here is supposed to be innocent, that means the "victim" is responsible for the so-called rape!".

It's wrong the other way too, of course- You can't say the word "assume" without asking that you actively take a side, which is the opposite of justice.

not necessarily.

Look at officer Wilson from the Mike Brown shooting.
Not enough evidence to prove he did anything wrong, the evidence matched his story and the witnesses all said different things.

I would never, as far as what I know, be able to say he was guilty but I could never say he was innocent either.

We will never really know what happened that day or be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
But I certainly wouldnt vouch for him either.

In the absence of additional (reliable) information, yes (for the reasons given by a few already in this thread).

That said, I suppose it'd be difficult not to exercise a little more wariness in the future where that individual is concerned.

indeed!

If the evidence provided proves otherwise, no.

Usually not guilty means innocence. But sometimes (OJ) the wrong verdict gets applied.

They may be proven as "not guilty" what comes to the present case. I don't know the defendant's other adventures, so I cannot necessarily know that they're "innocent" based on this one case only.

It Really does not make them innocent if they where proven innocent, Because, They may really be the murder and get away from it, Because sometimes that person is the killer or gunman and is proven innocent, and Thats not right.

They might be guilty

No. And there have been so many famous cases where we all knew they were guilty.