If the court system says you are innocent until proven guilty why is a not guilty verdict the same as innocent?

Answer 1

It is as is said "in the eye of the beholder." Depending upon the circumstances a "not guilty" verdict could mean that there wasn't enough evidence to convict the person on trial. There's a pretty famous trial that supports that premise. What it comes down to is what people choose to believe. Was the person innocent or did they just "get away with it."

A jury is not being asked to determine if the defendant is factually innocent, they are only being asked to determine if the prosecutor met the burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is higher than the burden of proof in a civil case, which is usually a preponderance.

In most states, the court will conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to conduct a trial. In the US, that means that a grand jury has already determined that there is a question of fact that needs to be determined by a finder of fact (usually the jury) and enough credible evidence to support a possible conviction.

In my opinion, O.J. Simpson got away with murder. But a second jury in a wrongful death lawsuit held him responsible and awarded millions of dollars in damages. Two different juries, two different burdens of proof, two different results.

ANSWER

The prosecution has to substantiate a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing or to a Grand Jury. The case isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A prima facie case can be presented against nearly anybody within the area of a crime or related to a person who committed a crime.

Example: Drew Peterson is suspected of killing his third wife and being involved in the disappearance of his fourth wife. The prosecution has a prima facie case against him. They could indict him, but they don't have enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt so they haven't charged him.

Furthermore, they could make a prima facie case against any husband when his wife goes missing. It just means it can go to trial. You don't want to do that because of DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Try a man once and fail, and it doesn't matter what you find later. In the United States and many other western countries, you cannot do it again.

Answer 2

'Innocent' is a subjective term and 'not guilty' is an objective phrase. When one is found guilty by a court, the court is simply saying that the said person has broken a law; the innocence of the person is not a factor because innocence is subjective. If somebody drives a car in excess of the speed limit to get a severely injured person to a hospital, they are guilty of breaking a law, however, assuming they were not reckless or negligent, they could be seen as innocent, because had they not acted in that manner, the injured person could have died. Most people would agree that the person is indeed innocent because of that, however he is still guilty of breaking the speed limit.