Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

TurtleDude said:

Nope, you don't understand the term.

Click to expand...

You weren't responding to me, but... I understand the term, as it is applied now, but I believe the term has been perverted over time.

radcen said:

There could be. And if there is question regarding innocence they can still opt for "not guilty". There has never been a suggestion in this thread that "innocent" would replace "not guilty", though many seem to treat the idea as if it does. Anyway, the prosecution could also present a completely unbelievable case, as well. False confessions are often fed to the defendants, with "facts" that fit only a small fraction of what they do know, so it's not implausible.

False confessions is only one possibility, and was mentioned only for example purposes.

Click to expand...

I just can't see any prosecutor going to trial if there's pat evidence of innocence, which is what you would need to be "innocent beyond a reasonable doubt".

MoSurveyor said:

I just can't see any prosecutor going to trial if there's pat evidence of innocence, which is what you would need to be "innocent beyond a reasonable doubt".

Click to expand...

I think many prosecutors are arrogant, and they count on most people still believing they're infallible.

radcen said:

I think many prosecutors are arrogant, and they count on most people still believing they're infallible.

Click to expand...

Trials cost money. If enough of cases aren't convictions then someone above their head is going to start complaining. It's in the best interest of prosecutors to have at least a so-so case if they're going to trial, and that precludes an "innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" result.

MoSurveyor said:

Trials cost money. If enough of cases aren't convictions then someone above their head is going to start complaining. It's in the best interest of prosecutors to have at least a so-so case if they're going to trial, and that precludes an "innocent beyond a reasonable doubt" result.

Click to expand...

Everybody loses a trial here and there, but no one wants the losses to stack up. Maybe the possibility of being slapped down with an innocent verdict would cause those prosecutors who have weak evidence to rethink taking it to trial in the first place.

radcen said:

Why? How would adding "innocent" as an option upset anything?

Click to expand...

Because that is not the purpose of the court. It is not there to show that you definitively prove that you didn't do something. It's there to prove that you did something. Hence the outcomes guilty or not guilty. And if someone is found not guilty in a criminal case, that court shouldn't have the authority to say "and we hereby proclaim that you can't be sued either". If there is a person that wants to sue for damages in court as a civil matter then that is there business. If they can prove there case then that's what they'll do.

radcen said:

Everybody loses a trial here and there, but no one wants the losses to stack up. Maybe the possibility of being slapped down with an innocent verdict would cause those prosecutors who have weak evidence to rethink taking it to trial in the first place.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it would have much effect on their decisions. They either think they have a case or they don't think they have a case.

MoSurveyor said:

I seriously doubt it would have much effect on their decisions. They either think they have a case or they don't think they have a case.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not so sure.

There was a big issue here locally just last year where the county DA angered the local police by refusing to take weak cases to court if he felt they were unwinnable. While that might seem to back your point, and to a degree it does, it should also be noted that the police made it a point that previous DAs never thwarted them like that and would just prosecute whatever was sent to them.

I believe this happens more than we know.

radcen said:

Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

We presently have "guilty" and "not guilty" as verdict options. "Not guilty" is often treated as "we still think you're guilty, we just didn't present a good enough case to convict you". Victims and/or their families often follow up a not guilty verdict with a civil lawsuit seeking financial damages, as the level of proof is lower.

As we have seen with so many exonerations in recent years, factually innocent people get convicted too often, so it stands to reason that there are more that are wrongly accused but beat the rap and are found not guilty... yet the "not guilty" still may face legal battles in the form of civil lawsuits, civil rights violation charges, and so on.

Should we add a third option of "innocent" for juries and/or judges to consider and use? Because it is now undeniable that factually innocent people are sometimes accused and charged, this would allow juries and/or judges to state, "We see no credible evidence whatsoever that this person is guilty, and as such, deem them to be factually innocent. They are hereby set free, and cannot face any further prosecution whatsoever for this particular crime." This would eliminate civil suits, civil rights violation charges, etc. A person who is deemed innocent shouldn't have to face a never-ending legal gauntlet simply because a family is emotionally upset (albeit understandably, but still...), or the DoJ is grandstanding.

Would it be perfect? Of course not. Human involvement eliminates any concept of perfection. Would it be an improvement and a step toward fairness (which justice is supposed to be about)? Yes, I believe so.

Click to expand...

I say no the current system is already fine.You are already innocent until you are proven guilty in a court of law.

shrubnose said:

What I am advocating is that we adopt the Scottish system, under which "Not Proven' indicates that although the jury believes the accused to be guilty but there is not enough evidence for a conviction.

Click to expand...

At the risk of derailing this thread, I think that the Martin/Zimmerman case might have made an excellent candidate for a "not proven" verdict.

Phys251 said:

At the risk of derailing this thread, I think that the Martin/Zimmerman case might have made an excellent candidate for a "not proven" verdict.

Click to expand...

That was my thought also

That is really not derailing the thead, the idea of the thread, I thought, was a "superduper, extra special" not guilty verdict for the Z man. Which would have declared him not guilty, innocent, and virgin. I think he plans to turn superhero too.

Phys251 said:

At the risk of derailing this thread, I think that the Martin/Zimmerman case might have made an excellent candidate for a "not proven" verdict.

Click to expand...

Options 2 and 3 are the same. We presume innocence, so if someone is found "not guilty" then, legally, they remain innocent.

Public opinion is irrelevant and will not change based on a change in the system.

Tucker Case said:

Across the board, yes. Individuals have the right to bring suit, and then the system is designed to allow other individuals to determine if culpability is present using the civil standards for culpability, rather than the criminal standards for guilt.

To argue that civil cases should be disallowed due to the results of a criminal suit is to remove the rights of the people. Just because a person has received immunity from criminal prosecution due to their 5th amendment rights does not mean that others should lose their right to present a lawsuit regarding culpability.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between bringing forth a legitimate civil suit and using civil suits to bully.

Kal'Stang said:

There's a difference between bringing forth a legitimate civil suit and using civil suits to bully.

Click to expand...

Of course. But that is neither here nor there with regard to double jeopardy.

Ray410 said:

The rare exception is by virtue of widespread, knowledgeable public opinion in some cases, such as OJ Simpson.

It's offensive that the Liberals are doing their best to give the impression that the wrong verdict was reached in the George Zimmerman trial, the impression that Zimmerman is actually guilty and something went terribly wrong. He started out innocent and he walked out of court innocent of all charges.

Click to expand...

What does "widespread, knowledgeable public opinion" have to do with the guilt or innocence of a defendant found not guilty at the conclusion of a trial?

I never can understand this idea that the "Court of Public Opinion" (i.e. the Peanut Gallery) has some magical ability to discern actual truth from facts that is lacking in the members of a jury. Especially since, unlike most juries, the Peanut Gallery is a part-time audience constantly barraged by allegations, accusations, commentary, opinions, speculations, and emotional B/S from whichever media outlet it prefers to watch...in between favorite programs and other leisure activities.

A jury deals only with actual evidence with the duty to detemine facts leading to their truly "informed" final decision. You many not agree with the final decision, but you are certainly not more "knowledgeable" about the case than they are. It should be equally offensive when whoever disagreed with the OJ case thinks they know more than the jury who made the final decision. Civil suit notwithstanding due to the low level of proof required in one.

radcen said:

"Not guilty" would remain pretty much as it is now... the defendant may be guilty, but the burden of proof was not established.

"Innocent" would be something like... not only has the burden of proof not been established, but we believe this case is ridiculous and don't buy the charges/accusations at all, hence "innocent".

Click to expand...

Really? So what happens a few years down the road when evidence is uncovered which shows the defendant DID commit the crime? Or maybe he goes out and tries to profit by writing a tell-all book admitting his guilt? The bottom line is that absent incontrovertible evidence of innocence (video showing what happened, iron clad alibi showing defendant was never present) there really is no way to prove absolute innocence. A jury's "belief" does not make it a fact.

radcen said:

You'd never be able to fix people's individual opinions and biases. The purpose would be to clean up some of the additional legal ramifications and spare some people who are indeed factually innocent from facing never-ending financial ruin from constantly having to spend every spare cent in court.

Click to expand...

While it does happen from time to time (like the boys soccer team rape case) the state doesn't often prosecute with little or no evidence of wrongdoing identifying the defendant as the probable actor. If there is clear evidence to the contrary (video, plane ticket and hotel bill from out of state), they won't prosecute. There has to be a question of guilt, which means all that can be done is to try to resolve THAT question...Guilty or NOT Guilty. Trying to determine innocence would require shifting the burden to the defendant, who is now responsible for proving a negative (I did not do it). Absent incontrovertible evidence, that is impossible to prove.

TurtleDude said:

one of the biggest problems we have in this country is lawyers pretending that only they can understand what are mostly pretty plain and obvious foundations of our system of laws

Click to expand...

HEY!!! I resemble that remark! :2razz: LOL

Captain Adverse said:

Really? So what happens a few years down the road when evidence is uncovered which shows the defendant DID commit the crime? Or maybe he goes out and tries to profit by writing a tell-all book admitting his guilt? The bottom line is that absent incontrovertible evidence of innocence (video showing what happened, iron clad alibi showing defendant was never present) there really is no way to prove absolute innocence. A jury's "belief" does not make it a fact.

Click to expand...

While not overly common, we already have that. It's not unheard of for people to be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution convinces a jury to believe their side with no incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

radcen said:

While not overly common, we already have that. It's not unheard of for people to be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Click to expand...

True, but aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with your original point or my response....

There is a whole system of appellate review that allows new evidence which comes to light later to be used to get an innocent person released. In such cases, there is also (in most states anyway) restitution paid out, although I must admit that it hardly helps after spending years trying to survive amongst hardened crimnals. If all else fails there is still the possibiity of Pardon.

But a person found not guilty is protected from being charged with the same offense by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Note was "deleted").

Captain Adverse said:

True, but aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with your original point or my response....

Click to expand...

It squarely addresses your response because it points out that decisions/verdicts are indeed sometimes made based on belief.

Captain Adverse said:

There is a whole system of appellate review that allows new evidence which comes to light later to be used to get an innocent person released. In such cases, there is also (in most states anyway) restitution paid out, although I must admit that it hardly helps after spending years trying to survive amongst hardened crimnals. If all else fails there is still the possibiity of Pardon.

Click to expand...

There is all that, but I have read that the percentages of any of those working in the defendants favor are pretty slim. Appellate courts are often little more than a rubber stamp. Chances are that if you don't succeed at the original trial, you probably won't at all. Statistically.

I don't recall which book or books I read that. They were books based on wrongful convictions, though.

radcen said:

It squarely addresses your response because it points out that decisions/verdicts are indeed sometimes made based on belief.

Click to expand...

Actually, you would be incorrect. The Judge determines matters of law, the Jury determines matters of fact. This means that the jury sifts through all the evidence presented, determines which is factual, then makes a decision based upon that determination. Again, all they are required to do is address the question: Is the defendant Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If there is a reasonable doubt then they are required to find the defendant Not Guilty. This does not require that they believe he is innocent, only that the facts presented allow for the possibility he is not guilty.

radcen said:

"There is all that, but I have read that the percentages of any of those working in the defendants favor are pretty slim. Appellate courts are often little more than a rubber stamp. Chances are that if you don't succeed at the original trial, you probably won't at all. Statistically.

I don't recall which book or books I read that. They were books based on wrongful convictions, though.

Click to expand...

It is true that once determined guilty it is very hard to prove one's innocence. However, it is not impossible and it has happened frequently enough to both confirm the value of the process and cast doubt about the solidity of other similar cases. Recall, just because a convicted person claims innocence is no reason to accept that either...almost ALL convicted parties claim to be innocent. Real evidence will prove otherwise, even after a trial is over.

Captain Adverse said:

Actually, you would be incorrect. The Judge determines matters of law, the Jury determines matters of fact. This means that the jury sifts through all the evidence presented, determines which is factual, then makes a decision based upon that determination. Again, all they are required to do is address the question: Is the defendant Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If there is a reasonable doubt then they are required to find the defendant Not Guilty. This does not require that they believe he is innocent, only that the facts presented allow for the possibility he is not guilty.



It is true that once determined guilty it is very hard to prove one's innocence. However, it is not impossible and it has happened frequently enough to both confirm the value of the process and cast doubt about the solidity of other similar cases. Recall, just because a convicted person claims innocence is no reason to accept that either...almost ALL convicted parties claim to be innocent. Real evidence will prove otherwise, even after a trial is over.

Click to expand...

A really interesting topic for me, because in a neighboring state there was a police officer who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and dismembering her, so as you can imagine this was a big story around here. Come to find out like 10 years later, it was found through DNA testing that he was actually innocent. I think he sued the state too. I'm not too sure because I was very young at the time. But there is a perfect example of someone being exonerated after being convicted, and a lot of years later too. Not good for him that he was convicted to begin with, but everyone thought he was guilty too.

Captain Adverse said:

Actually, you would be incorrect. The Judge determines matters of law, the Jury determines matters of fact. This means that the jury sifts through all the evidence presented, determines which is factual, then makes a decision based upon that determination. Again, all they are required to do is address the question: Is the defendant Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If there is a reasonable doubt then they are required to find the defendant Not Guilty. This does not require that they believe he is innocent, only that the facts presented allow for the possibility he is not guilty.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that you are stating how things are currently done. I don't dispute that. I am proposing a change to how things are done.

Many others in the thread have made statements regarding presumption of innocence, and so on. "Innocent until proven guilty" is something that I harp on all the time, but in reality I don't believe it really exists. I believe that in practical real world application it is a myth. My concerns would have probably never even come to this point if we as both a society and a legal system actually practiced what we preach.

Three points on this issue:

1. In your system and mine, you are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is not proven you are, therefore innocent.

2. If you provide an option that goes beyond those that now exist, such as "innocent", you leave open the legal possibility that someone is formally tainted although not guilty. Far better to let people believe what they want to believe after the fact than have a jury verdict that formalizes doubt.

3. Juries are presented with the facts as they currently exist and the facts as allowed by sometimes convoluted rules related to admissibility of evidence. No jury is capable of fully determining innocence unless they actually witnessed the event/crime. Too much of the detail is left out of the presentation before them either because it is unknown by the authorities or because it is not allowed by a judge.

radcen said:

Keep in mind that you are stating how things are currently done. I don't dispute that. I am proposing a change to how things are done.

Many others in the thread have made statements regarding presumption of innocence, and so on. "Innocent until proven guilty" is something that I harp on all the time, but in reality I don't believe it really exists. I believe that in practical real world application it is a myth. My concerns would have probably never even come to this point if we as both a society and a legal system actually practiced what we preach.

Click to expand...

Well the difference is a person may very well be innocent, but this has nothing to do with the legal presumption requirement.

In order to overcome the massive power of the State which is bearing down on an individual citizen with the intent to deprive him of life or liberty, our society has set up a system which gives the citizen a small fighting chance. Juries are told they MUST start their review of the facts from the position that the defendant is INNOCENT, then sift through the evidence to see if the State has proven he is Guilty. To give the Defendant even more of a chance, the jury must find Guilt beyond reasonable doubt...NOT because our system thinks the defendant is innocent, but rather because it is better to let ten guilty men go free than deprive any innocent man of his life or freedom.

So, the jury is not trying to determine if a person is innocent, only trying to determine if the State has proven Guilt beyond a resonable doubt. The Not Guilty decision only means the state has failed, not that the defendant is actually innocent. HOWEVER, IMO we as a society should accept that presumption and give the defendant the benefit of the doubt until new evidence comes to light showing he was actually guilty the whole time. At which point, despite his being a free man, all bets are off.

Captain Adverse said:

Well the difference is a person may very well be innocent, but this has nothing to do with the legal presumption requirement.

In order to overcome the massive power of the State which is bearing down on an individual citizen with the intent to deprive him of life or liberty, our society has set up a system which gives the citizen a small fighting chance. Juries are told they MUST start their review of the facts from the position that the defendant is INNOCENT, then sift through the evidence to see if the State has proven he is Guilty. To give the Defendant even more of a chance, the jury must find Guilt beyond reasonable doubt...NOT because our system thinks the defendant is innocent, but rather because it is better to let ten guilty men go free than deprive any innocent man of his life or freedom.

So, the jury is not trying to determine if a person is innocent, only trying to determine if the State has proven Guilt beyond a resonable doubt. The decision only means the state has failed, not that the defendant is actually innocent. HOWEVER, IMO we as a society should accept that presumption and give the defendant the benefit of the doubt until new evidence comes to light showing he was actually guilty the whole time. At which point, despite his being a free man, all bets are off.

Click to expand...

Ok, so if the jury starts at "innocent", and never sees any evidence that is persuasive enough to sway them from "innocent", not even to the next step of "not guilty" (aka "not proven"), why shouldn't they be allowed to render such a verdict?

(I'm going to bed, but will pick this up tomorrow.)