• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes, "innocent" would be a welcome addition as an option.

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • No, but we should treat "not guilty" as "innocent".

    Votes: 7 20.6%

  • No, the current system works fine. ('Splain yerself, Lucy)

    Votes: 16 47.1%

  • Something else.

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Total voters
    34
Smeagol said:
I assume with "Innocent" as an option, we'd still have the other two; "not guilty" and "guilty." Under our system we "presume innocence until proven guilty." A third option of in effect label the not guilty as "possibly guilty but we're not sure"; a label that will stigmatize them for the rest of their lives as well as help to define their legacy after they pass away.
Click to expand...

"Not guilty" currently does just that. Not only are people still (potentially) subject to continued prosecution in the form of civil suits and DoJ civil rights violation charges, but they do indeed carry a stigma around for the rest of their lives... even if they are indeed factually innocent.

Granted, "innocent" would not wholly stop the stigma, but it would help, and it would give a legal status to point to and help in future employment endeavors, etc.

The idea is that "innocent" would be added as an option, and that the current two options would remain.
 
Last edited:
Finding someone 'guilty' is being convinced of a claim.

Finding someone 'not guilty' is being unconvinced of a claim.

Finding someone 'innocent' is being convinced of an (absolute) negative, thus it would require shifting the burden of proof to the accused and executing a logically impossible task.
 
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".

I do not believe "innocent" would be used often, but it would be a useful option to save some defendants from unnecessary additional prosecution. A factually innocent person... and they do exist... could be freed from after-the-fact political grandstanding such as civil rights violation charges, and so on.

"Not guilty" could still leave open the potential for civil suits, etc.
Click to expand...

The civil suit should still be left open either way because a criminal jury does not hear the elements of a civil case, nor should they.
 
Fisher said:
The civil suit should still be left open either way because a criminal jury does not hear the elements of a civil case, nor should they.
Click to expand...

Disagree. "Not guilty" would leave that open, as is now. "Innocent" would be a finding of "There was no crime, as far as this defendant is concerned." If there was no crime, there is nothing on which to base a civil suit or any other further actions.
 
radcen said:
Disagree. "Not guilty" would leave that open, as is now. "Innocent" would be a finding of "There was no crime, as far as this defendant is concerned." If there was no crime, there is nothing on which to base a civil suit or any other further actions.
Click to expand...

That won't stop the idiot liberals.
 
radcen said:
Disagree. "Not guilty" would leave that open, as is now. "Innocent" would be a finding of "There was no crime, as far as this defendant is concerned." If there was no crime, there is nothing on which to base a civil suit or any other further actions.
Click to expand...

Nope. Perhaps you fail to understand that a civil suit does not have to be based upon a crime and the ones that are tied in have different legal issues to decide. Pass Contributory negligence laws and you will stop a great many lawsuits in their tracks. That is the more common sense approach if you are so worried about it--if you contributed to your injury then you get nothing even if it was only 1% and your contribution was breaking into the house.
 
radcen said:
Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?
Click to expand...

Guilty, Not Guilty is exactly how it should be. Our court system was set up for the state to prove guilt, not the individual to prove innocence.
 
Cephus said:
Which is exactly what "not guilty" is. The prosecution hasn't proven it's case.
Click to expand...





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.
 
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...

No need. State must prove guilt. It is either guilty or not guilty based on state evidence. That's it. No little "well I think this guy is guilty, but there wasn't" blah blah blah. Guilty or not guilty. State did its job or it couldn't prove action of the other party. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Fisher said:
Nope. Perhaps you fail to understand that a civil suit does not have to be based upon a crime and the ones that are tied in have different legal issues to decide. Pass Contributory negligence laws and you will stop a great many lawsuits in their tracks. That is the more common sense approach if you are so worried about it--if you contributed to your injury then you get nothing even if it was only 1% and your contribution was breaking into the house.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I understand just fine, but also see the flaws in the system and see room for improvement.

With few exceptions, the opposition to the idea has been nothing more than, "...but, but, but... we've always done it this way."


Ikari said:
Guilty, Not Guilty is exactly how it should be. Our court system was set up for the state to prove guilt, not the individual to prove innocence.
Click to expand...
That is how our system was set up... and it has evolved away from that.
 
radcen said:
That is how our system was set up... and it has evolved away from that.
Click to expand...

And we need to get back to it. The State must prove guilt, not the individual proving innocence. It's ass backwards to put it on the individual. The State wants to use its force against the free exercise of rights, then the State must prove its case.
 
our legal doctrine is "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

if guilt is not proven, the individual is presumed innocent.

ergo, "innocent" is already part of the system.
 
Thrilla said:
our legal doctrine is "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

if guilt is not proven, the individual is presumed innocent.

ergo, "innocent" is already part of the system.
Click to expand...

In theory. On paper.

In practical reality? Not so much.
 
The people have spoken.

The status quo of a flawed system... a system that doesn't really work as advertised... is it.
 
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...

The only thing I'd like to see changed is that juries be allowed to find Not Guilty by reason of self-defense. In the MZ case, the reason Zimmerman was found not guilty was because the state couldn't prove it wasn't self-defense. If he had pled "Not Guilty by Reason of Self Defense" and then been found Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense then, I think the defendant should be immune from civil lawsuit. That would be an improvement in our laws, in my opinion.
 
radcen said:
The people have spoken.

The status quo of a flawed system... a system that doesn't really work as advertised... is it.
Click to expand...
The thing is, prosecutors seldom (if ever) pursue cases where there is actual no-doubt-about-it physical evidence that the "accused" is innocent. For example, if he's got a room full of 50 people at a party in another city saying he was there (and maybe other evidence backing that up as well like a store, gas, or airline receipt) then he obviously didn't commit the crime and will not be charged in the first place. A time-stamped video is also good proof of whereabouts at a particular time. An accused rapist who doesn't match the DNA in the semen found. That's why crimes are investigated, to uncover the facts of the case before trial.
 
Thrilla said:
what do you mean by "practical reality"?... how is a person that is found not guilty not innocent in "practical reality"?
Click to expand...
All "not guilty" means is that guilt was not proven. Guilt not being proven =/= innocence. Even many people in this thread who do not agree with my proposal agree with that point.


MaggieD said:
The only thing I'd like to see changed is that juries be allowed to find Not Guilty by reason of self-defense. In the MZ case, the reason Zimmerman was found not guilty was because the state couldn't prove it wasn't self-defense. If he had pled "Not Guilty by Reason of Self Defense" and then been found Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense then, I think the defendant should be immune from civil lawsuit. That would be an improvement in our laws, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Id be open to considering that.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The thing is, prosecutors seldom (if ever) pursue cases where there is actual no-doubt-about-it physical evidence that the "accused" is innocent. For example, if he's got a room full of 50 people at a party in another city saying he was there (and maybe other evidence backing that up as well like a store, gas, or airline receipt) then he obviously didn't commit the crime and will not be charged in the first place. A time-stamped video is also good proof of whereabouts at a particular time. An accused rapist who doesn't match the DNA in the semen found. That's why crimes are investigated, to uncover the facts of the case before trial.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. Police often coerce false confessions, and prosecutors often run with that as their only evidence. Yes, that is technically evidence, but I do not find it implausible at all that in the past juries have felt the accused was indeed completely innocent... because the prosecution's case was so bad and transparent... but could only render a not guilty verdict as that was their only option.
 
radcen said:
All "not guilty" means is that guilt was not proven. Guilt not being proven =/= innocence. Even many people in this thread who do not agree with my proposal agree with that point.
Click to expand...

legally speaking, "not guilty" is the same as "innocent"... it's pretty basic.

there's only one way not to be found "innocent"... and that way is the state proving you're guilty.
to add in an actual "innocent" verdict is unnecessary and diminishes the "not guilty" verdict.
 
Thrilla said:
legally speaking, "not guilty" is the same as "innocent"... it's pretty basic.

there's only one way not to be found "innocent"... and that way is the state proving you're guilty.
to add in an actual "innocent" verdict is unnecessary and diminishes the "not guilty" verdict.
Click to expand...

Then why not simply change the wording from "not guilty" to "innocent"? That would clarify things, and be more precise, wouldn't it? :shrug:

The reason we don't, or didn't, is because the wording was carefully chosen as it means something different from innocent.
 
radcen said:
Then why not simply change the wording from "not guilty" to "innocent"? That would clarify things, and be more precise, wouldn't it? :shrug:

The reason we don't, or didn't, is because the wording was carefully chosen as it means something different from innocent.
Click to expand...


no, it was chosen due to the obligation the state possesses when it comes to criminal proceedings... it's an accurate representation of that obligation.

the states obligation is prove guilt ( innocence is presumed).... so we have "guilty" or "not guilty"as the logical choices.
 
such a question either demonstrates a complete ignorance of the presumption of innocence that serves as the foundation of our criminal justice system or displays complete contempt for that foundation
 
TurtleDude said:
such a question either demonstrates a complete ignorance of the presumption of innocence that serves as the foundation of our criminal justice system or displays complete contempt for that foundation
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing and I'm a logger not a lawyer. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom