Do they both mean the same thing ?
Does Acquittal carry a negative stigma verses not guilty ?
Or are they the exact same meaning , just two different words
Some Authors refer to Lizzie as being found Not Guilty,
Some refer to her as being Acquitted.
( dont laugh, I'm rather ignorant when it comes to legal terms )
thanks
matt
Why did Mrs Howell pack so many clothes for just a three hour tour ??
matt kevin jones wrote: Do they both mean the same thing ?
Does Acquittal carry a negative stigma verses not guilty ?
Or are they the exact same meaning , just two different words
Some Authors refer to Lizzie as being found Not Guilty,
Some refer to her as being Acquitted.
( dont laugh, I'm rather ignorant when it comes to legal terms )
thanks
matt
Hi Matt...I had to look it up, this is what I found.
Definition: Judgment, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as he/she was charged for - Not-guilty
And...
In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction.
So it appears to be that both terms can be used interchangably?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I would hesitate to use the terms interchangably. While being found not guilty is a form of acquittal, by the definition, an acquittal is not limited to being found not guilty. The phrase "or some similar end of the proceeding..." says that anything short of a verdict of guilty qualifies as an acquittal.
An example might be if an individual is on trial for a murder which he or she didn't commit, and the guilty party is discovered sometime during the trial, the accused would be found "innocent" of the crime. This is different than being found "not guilty" because "innocent" implies it was impossible for the accused to commit the crime and they should never have been tried. Being found "not guilty" only means that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Either outcome is an acquittal.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
The terms are not exactly separate, "not guilty"="acquittal", and "innocent"="acquittal". Both "not guilty" and "innocent" are forms of an acquittal. While I'm less certain, a hung jury which doesn't go to a re-trial would also be an acquittal. Having a case thrown out of court because of a violation of procedure would be an acquittal.
One way to look at it might be that "guilty"="conviction", and "anything other than guilty"="acquittal". Perhaps the root term is "quit" and anything causing the court to finish short of a conviction is a "quit".
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Does the court system make a distinction then between the terms "aquitted" and "not guilty"? When a jury comes in with a verdict, it's "guilty" or "not guilty" and not guilty is considered an acquittal. Guilty=Convicted; Not guilty=Acquitted; Charges dismissed=Innocent?
The original question posed asked for a distinction between those two terms and did one carry a stigma of doubt more than the other. Legally I wouldn't think they would. In the court's eyes, wouldn't ALL "not guilty" verdicts be considered an acquittal, unless as you said the actual guilty party was discovered before a verdict was read and the charges dismissed, therefore being found "innocent"?
LOL... "legalese" gives me a headache...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Kat @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:06 am wrote:I wasn't aware the term "innocent" was ever used in a court?
I agree. Have never heard the term "innocent" used in a real trial verdict. It's "guilty" or "not guilty". I've heard it used on TV shows when in the climatic moment the foreman stands up and says "We find the defendant innocent." Does not the jury have a standard form which they fill in the blocks with their decision? I doubt if the word "innocent" or "acquitted" is on it.
I don't believe any jury can "dismiss" the charges. That would be the judges decision.
I believe it's the Scots who came up with the unique verdict of "not proven". In some cases it applies but leaves the defendant in public opinion limbo, neither guilty or not guilty. In Lizzie's case the jury reached a not guilty decision but a sizable portion of the public reached a not proven verdict.
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
Ordinarily if a person is innocent of the charges brought against them, and the innocence is proven in court, the case is dismissed before ever reaching the jury. It doesn't need to be in a box on a jury form. Innocence is the same as "wrongly accused" which is a far cry from simply "not guilty" which implies that the defendant may have been correctly accused, but the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The public stigma may well exist with a verdict of not guilty, but it does not exist with innocence. That's the point.
Another way to look at the terms "acquittal" and "not guilty" is that "not guilty" was the finding of the court, and "acquittal" is what the court did as a result of that finding.
If we find that a person has been found not guilty by a court, we can imply that they have been acquitted. If we find that a person has been acquitted, we can not imply that they were found not guilty.
A mathematical correlation might be the non-commutativity of matrices under the function of multiplication: A*B does not equal B*A .
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
A jury does not vote on the innocence of a defendant. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The vote is on whether he/she is "guilty" or "not guilty" of the charges brought againt them. Note the absence of the word innocent.
A jury is a trier of facts and whether those facts support the charges of guilt. A jury has only two choices for deciding a charge - guilty or not guilty.
I agree that the term "acquitted" has less impact than "not guilty". It leaves a taste of doubt, if however slight, in one's mouth.
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
My understanding of the terms is that "not guilty" is the finding of a jury. "Acquittal" is the legal "stamp of innocence" which prevents retrial for the same offense.
If a person can be acquitted of a crime, due to a procedural violation by the police for instance, then they are legally innocent. They may be guilty as hell, with eyewitnesses, hard evidence, etc. This is completely different than that person proving that they were in Chicago in a coma while the crime took place in Los Angeles. Proven innocence is different than innocence by default in the eye of the public, though not necessarily in the letter of the law.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Logically and legally, you can't prove innocence. Anyone who says different is ignorant, lying, or both.
Guilt is proved, not innocence. People are innocent until proven guilty.
It is also true that being indicted will put a label of guilty on anyone, even when they are found not guilty. Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson are examples.
Dr. Sam Shepard was first found guilty, then his conviction was overturned. Same for Tom Mooney.
Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty and executed, even though they were not guilty AND a member of the hold-up gang confessed.
PS Jack Kehoe was judicially murdered by a corrupt corporation in 1879. A century later the governor of Pennsyvania gave him a full pardon.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
I can certainly prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I am innocent of the Borden murders. Innocence can indeed be proven, but it is not required by law that anyone do so.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Wow
I diden't mean to open up such a big can of worms
But it seemed to me ( Now keep in mind I have no legal education whatsoever, this is just my thought )
That Acquittal could carry the negative stigma, that the person in the eyes of the public was truly guilty, but there was not enough evidence to convict the or find them " guilty "
Seems to me that was the case with Lizzie?
Everyones response, has opened my eyes a little further to the terms.
Why did Mrs Howell pack so many clothes for just a three hour tour ??
I apologize for the rants, Matt, they are non-productive and don't address the original question.
As to using the terms interchangably, generally, no. If one is found not guilty, then one is also acquitted, so it works in that direction. But, if one has been acquitted, we can't necessarily assume that it is because they were found not guilty. They can be acquitted by the case being dismissed, the charges dropped, or by proving their innocence. Any number of events might lead to an acquittal, so interchangability doesn't work in reverse sequence.
Because several different occurrences might lead to an acquittal, it may carry more of a stigma than a finding of not guilty. It is possible to be guilty as sin and still get an acquittal! And be legally innocent!
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Another thought along the same lines, in Lizzie's case, she was found not guilty. She was acquitted and held legally innocent. That means that even if new evidence surfaces proving her guilt, she can not be re-tried for the same crime.
If someone else commited the murders, with Lizzie's assistance or knowledge, she could be re-tried as an accessory.
P.S.
Matt, don't take us old goats butting heads seriously, we'll all sit down together and have a beer at the end of the day!
Yooper @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:38 pm wrote:I can certainly prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I am innocent of the Borden murders. Innocence can indeed be proven, but it is not required by law that anyone do so.
When were you indicted?
The Grand Jury is supposed to decide if there is enough evidence to hold a trial.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
matt kevin jones @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:53 pm wrote:Wow
I diden't mean to open up such a big can of worms
But it seemed to me ( Now keep in mind I have no legal education whatsoever, this is just my thought )
That Acquittal could carry the negative stigma, that the person in the eyes of the public was truly guilty, but there was not enough evidence to convict the or find them " guilty "
Seems to me that was the case with Lizzie?
Everyones response, has opened my eyes a little further to the terms.
Aside from a book in your local library system, one way is to read some of the novels of Erle Stanley Gardner. His books introduced people to legal concepts and facts.
The Case of the Burning Bequest, by John Chastain, involves the murder of a woman. One glove is missing, DNA evidence points to one suspect, etc. This was written in 1991. It introduced the new science of DNA to the reading public. Gardner often introduced new facts into his works.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
Yooper @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:29 pm wrote:I apologize for the rants, Matt, they are non-productive and don't address the original question.
As to using the terms interchangably, generally, no. If one is found not guilty, then one is also acquitted, so it works in that direction. But, if one has been acquitted, we can't necessarily assume that it is because they were found not guilty. They can be acquitted by the case being dismissed, the charges dropped, or by proving their innocence. Any number of events might lead to an acquittal, so interchangability doesn't work in reverse sequence.
Because several different occurrences might lead to an acquittal, it may carry more of a stigma than a finding of not guilty. It is possible to be guilty as sin and still get an acquittal! And be legally innocent!
Only a not guilty verdict ends the trial. A hung jury or dismissal could allow a second trial. But not if another person becomes the main suspect.
A good legal dictionary (may be in your library) should answer this.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
RayS @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:51 pm wrote:Logically and legally, you can't prove innocence. Anyone who says different is ignorant, lying, or both.
Guilt is proved, not innocence. People are innocent until proven guilty.
It is also true that being indicted will put a label of guilty on anyone, even when they are found not guilty. Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson are examples.
Dr. Sam Shepard was first found guilty, then his conviction was overturned. Same for Tom Mooney.
Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty and executed, even though they were not guilty AND a member of the hold-up gang confessed.
PS Jack Kehoe was judicially murdered by a corrupt corporation in 1879. A century later the governor of Pennsyvania gave him a full pardon.
Logically, legally, and to a mathematical certainty, I have shown that innocence can be proven. I am neither ignorant, nor lying.
The fact of another person confessing to the crime will NOT prevent the convicted person from being executed or imprisoned.
The Sacco & Vanzetti case is the best example.
F Lee Bailey's "Defense Never Rests" points out there is little in the law to revoke an unjust verdict. One reason why the death penalty is going out of favor. Bailey also tells of a newspaper publisher who was indicted for murder after he revealed links between the Prosecutor and organized crime! They used a criminal's perjuty to indict (he was out of state at the time!!!).
Until you read many of the famous True Crime cases, you will be surprised by what often goes on in your city or county.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
RayS @ Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:48 pm wrote:The fact of another person confessing to the crime will NOT prevent the convicted person from being executed or imprisoned.
True a person cannot be arrested or convicted on the basis of a confession alone. There has to be clear evidence to support the confession and show that the person did what they are confessing to. This is all part of being innnocent until proven guilty, even if one confesses. Because lets face it there will always be crack pots who confess to crimes they didn't commit. Even in the Borden case there was a man who confessed, the police investigated and of course found out he was a little crazy, but no murderer. What hurts is if the actual guilty party were to confess after someone else had already been wrongly convicted, if he cannot prove it or show evidence to support it, then the conviction stands for the not guilty party.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
My only point is that in a court of law the term innocent does not apply, that's all. I don't think it should be used in describing anything legal/forensic. That word came up earlier in this thread and that is my reply.
When in doubt look to the source document.
Here we have the second day of court session:
Page 46
COMMONWEALTH vs. LIZZIE A. BORDEN
Second Day
New Bedford, June 6, 1893
The Court came in at nine o'clock. The jurors and the prisoner answered to the calling of their names.
THE CLERK: Gentlemen of the Jury, hearken unto an indictment found against the prisoner at the bar by the grand inquest of this County.
The Clerk read the indictment, at the close of which he said:
To each count of which indictment Lizzie Andrew Borden, the prisoner at the bar, has heretofore pleaded and said that thereof she is not guilty, and for trial puts herself upon her country, which country you are. You are now sworn to try the issue. If she is guilty on either or both of said counts, you are to say so, and if she is not guilty on either or both of said counts, you are to say so, and no more. Good men and true--- stand together and hearken to your evidence.
After Sacco & Vanzetti were awaiting appeals and execution, a professional criminal (robber and murderer) confessed to being part of the gang, gace a confession where he named the other members of the gang. But that would have made the Establishment admit to a mistake, no more likely then than today. (Ever work in a corporation where they have to 'correct an error'?)
The one short book on the S&V trial ends by saying they were innocent of the crime. The Judge and Jury ruled from prejudice, etc.
You can look up this 80 year old case.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
From what I understand of the legal system, an aquittal basically is that the jury either didn't have enough to convict, or some of the evidence was kind of murky. In other words, the jury isn't saying that she wasn't quilty. just that they didn't believe some of the evidence. If they believed the evidence wholeheartedly, then they would have found her not quilty. Its just some of the evidence might have been alittle murky, and they didn't ask for clearification of the law, so they aquitted her.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Do they both mean the same thing ?
