• 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
sawyerloggingon said:
I was thinking the same thing and I'm a logger not a lawyer. :lol:
Click to expand...

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
 
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...

That's entirely irrelevant. Even if they think he's guilty, if they acquit him, he gets off scot free. Why bother adding another level to it?
 
Why change something that isn't at a problem at all?

The system is not designed to prove innocence. The system is not designed to influence public opinion. The system is designed to prosecute suspected criminals, who are presumed by the system to be innocent until proven guilty.

The key word the whole time is "system".

Individual people are free to think some mother ****er is guilty, regardless of the verdict, and they are free to think a mother ****er is innocent regardless of the verdict. Their opinions are not bound, in any way shape or form, by the outcomes in a court of law. That's where civil cases come into play. And even if someone is not guilty (or innocent if that term floats your boat better) of a crime, they can certainly still be legally culpable for damages in some way.
 
Cephus said:
That's entirely irrelevant. Even if they think he's guilty, if they acquit him, he gets off scot free. Why bother adding another level to it?
Click to expand...

In the present system, if a person is acquitted (found not guilty), but then has to face a civil trial and/or DoJ civil rights violation charges, how does that qualify as "scot free"?
 
radcen said:
In the present system, if a person is acquitted (found not guilty), but then has to face a civil trial and/or DoJ civil rights violation charges, how does that qualify as "scot free"?
Click to expand...

civil trials and criminal trials require different standards.
 
radcen said:
In the present system, if a person is acquitted (found not guilty), but then has to face a civil trial and/or DoJ civil rights violation charges, how does that qualify as "scot free"?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
 
Cephus said:
They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that, and is pretty much the intent behind my original suggestion.
 
Cephus said:
They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. two different parties

two different standards of proof.
 
radcen said:
Why *should* differing standards of proof matter?
Click to expand...

well lets look at OJ. The state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually they did-that was a complete joke of a trial and a judge and a jury but since I believe its better 10 scumbags go free than one innocent man hang I can live with it) but the Father of the slain boy could prove that it was more likely than not that OJ knifed his son.

you see, and I don't want to bore you with lectures of Issue Preclusion or Collateral Estoppel, it would be unfair to Mr Goldman to be prevented from suing OJ for a tort (wrongful death) due to the outcome of a trial where he was unable to present his case or call his own witnesses
 
Cephus said:
They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
Click to expand...

It's two types of different cases. It's not a double jeopardy situation...

A criminal case...is decided "beyond reasonable doubt" based on evidence.

However...

A civil case is decided on the "preponderance of the evidence", which means that "a person is more likely than not" based on the evidence...to have caused injury...or even death and is therefore liable for whatever is decided punitive damages (usually in dollars) are by a judge...or jury.
 
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...

You're already presumed innocent anyway, so the OP question doesn't make sense. It has to be guilty or not guilty.
 
TurtleDude said:
well lets look at OJ. The state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually they did-that was a complete joke of a trial and a judge and a jury but since I believe its better 10 scumbags go free than one innocent man hang I can live with it) but the Father of the slain boy could prove that it was more likely than not that OJ knifed his son.

you see, and I don't want to bore you with lectures of Issue Preclusion or Collateral Estoppel, it would be unfair to Mr Goldman to be prevented from suing OJ for a tort (wrongful death) due to the outcome of a trial where he was unable to present his case or call his own witnesses
Click to expand...
I agree the OJ trial was a travesty. And I don't disagree that the Goldman family did not receive justice at the criminal trial. But...

...while I have no links handy to show, it's not unreasonable to presume that the opposite has happened as well. Scenarios where an innocent person is rightfully acquitted, then sued in civil court and found guilty (or, liable) according to a new jury and a lowered standard of evidence. That's not justice, either.

We see the high-profile examples in the media, the emotional examples, but the law should be consistent, not subject to emotionalization, and I believe that allowing further prosecution is an emotional response. Basically, it's the system saying, "We're going to hound you to the end of the earth because we *know* you're guilty."
 
TurtleDude said:
I have to disagree. two different parties

two different standards of proof.
Click to expand...

So if you fail at one, you might as well give it a shot with the other? It's still double jeopardy.
 
Removable Mind said:
It's two types of different cases. It's not a double jeopardy situation...

A criminal case...is decided "beyond reasonable doubt" based on evidence.

However...

A civil case is decided on the "preponderance of the evidence", which means that "a person is more likely than not" based on the evidence...to have caused injury...or even death and is therefore liable for whatever is decided punitive damages (usually in dollars) are by a judge...or jury.
Click to expand...

Whether it's two different types of cases, the individual is still being tried twice for the same crime. It's double jeopardy no matter how you spin it.
 
TurtleDude said:
well lets look at OJ. The state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually they did-that was a complete joke of a trial and a judge and a jury but since I believe its better 10 scumbags go free than one innocent man hang I can live with it) but the Father of the slain boy could prove that it was more likely than not that OJ knifed his son.

you see, and I don't want to bore you with lectures of Issue Preclusion or Collateral Estoppel, it would be unfair to Mr Goldman to be prevented from suing OJ for a tort (wrongful death) due to the outcome of a trial where he was unable to present his case or call his own witnesses
Click to expand...

Also it is unfair for an individual to be prevented from filing suit due to the State's incompetence.
 
Cephus said:
So if you fail at one, you might as well give it a shot with the other?
Click to expand...

No, it's two different parties in two different cases, as he said. Ergo, it's not the same "you".

If one person/party fails at one thing, that should not prevent another party from doing some other thing. Trying to pretend it's one party using two different paths to reach the same goal won't change the actual reality of the situation: two different parties engaging in two different actions.
 
Cephus said:
Whether it's two different types of cases, the individual is still being tried twice for the same crime. It's double jeopardy no matter how you spin it.
Click to expand...

It's not the same crime. In one, there is no crime at all.
 
iacardsfan said:
And in theory adding "innocent" will help but in reality people minds are made up, and the verdict, whether it be guilty, not guilty, or innocent isn't going to change each individuals perception. By your logic we need to add "clearly guilty" verdict to persuade all those who believe that they should be acquitted to believing he/she is a criminal. Nothing we do is going to change the tunnel vision Americans have. Once they have the blinders on and decide something no manipulation of words is going to alter that opinion.
Click to expand...

What you said is entirely true. But I think the main point of having an ability to pronounce someone "Innnocent" isn't so much for the armchair lawyers as it is for the legal system itself. As stated in the OP it is to prevent civil suits that are made in order to further hurt the person in which some people believe is guilty no matter what the verdict was. The example given was a case in which Z defended himself against an aggressor and as such should not be further punished by never ending court battles.

Guilty would equal prison time obviously
Not guilty would equal "no actual 100% proof was given but the circumstantial evidence is enough to make it seem likely the person did commit the crime, just not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This leaves people up for civil suits and where possible further prosecution for a different charge/crime.
Innocent would equal just that..innocent and leave him/her the hell alone unless the commit an entirely new crime.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why change something that isn't at a problem at all?

The system is not designed to prove innocence. The system is not designed to influence public opinion. The system is designed to prosecute suspected criminals, who are presumed by the system to be innocent until proven guilty.

The key word the whole time is "system".

Individual people are free to think some mother ****er is guilty, regardless of the verdict, and they are free to think a mother ****er is innocent regardless of the verdict. Their opinions are not bound, in any way shape or form, by the outcomes in a court of law. That's where civil cases come into play. And even if someone is not guilty (or innocent if that term floats your boat better) of a crime, they can certainly still be legally culpable for damages in some way.
Click to expand...
The OJ Simpson case is a prime example of this.
 
shrubnose said:
The OJ Simpson case is a prime example of this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cephus said:
So if you fail at one, you might as well give it a shot with the other? It's still double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't understand the term.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...
And in cases like that, how could they result in your "innocent" verdict? If there's an actual confession there will always be some doubt about innocence.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And in cases like that, how could they result in your "innocent" verdict? If there's an actual confession there will always be some doubt about innocence.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
It already is: dismissed with prejudice (innocent of the charges, and cannot be retried for them.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom