Casey Anthony Acquitted and Graceless

[Brant Gaede]

It's all over the news everywhere, so there is no real gain in posting links. The jury found Casey Anthony innocent of everything except lying to the authorities. [...]

No, it did not.

The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of everything except lying to the authorities.

The difference is not semantic. Anthony had no need to prove anything, nor even to offer a defense. She was presumed innocent. The prosecution's responsibility was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not succeed.

I suppose some of us will always have to keep going back to offer reminders of these distinctions.

That some Americans do not grasp this — nor that one may not be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" (Fifth Amendment), meaning that not-guilty verdicts may not be appealed — is part of what is wrong with the collective level of rationality in this country.

Therefore the jury upheld the presumption of innocence in the context of a failed prosecution--that is, the jury affirmed her legal innocence by saying she was "Not Guilty." Or, she was presumed innocent before and during her trial and the jury continued that presumption. Or, the jury found her to be innocent and the "Not Guilty" was only the legal lid on the legal can of innocence, opened: game over, she jumps out, into the arms of her loving family and adoring fans.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some quotes from the web just to obscure a little bit more for the delight of hairsplitter.

Findlaw Legal Dictionary: innocence

: freedom from fault or guilt under the law: as

a : the state of not being guilty of a particular crime or offense compare guilt

b : the state of not being guilty of an act that constitutes a ground for divorce (...)

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008, at The Free Dictionary: innocent

adj. without guilt (not guilty). Usually the plea which an accused criminal defendant gives to the court at the time of his/her first appearance (or after a continued appearance). (...)

Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary: innocent

A term that is often mistakenly equated to a plea of "not guilty." Innocence is not a legal term, but rather a philosophical, moral, or religious expression of nonresponsibility. (...)

The legal dictionaries cannot even make up their minds.

So there.

I say it's reasonable to use the two terms as synonyms when discussing a news story. When filing a formal plea, I presume not.

And I don't think it has to do with hairsplitting over presumption of innocence so much as it has to do with formal legal terms used during court proceedings.

And to add to the confusion, what the hell is "presumption of innocence" if not a legal term? So Nolo's own hairsplit is contradicted by the fact that it has a definition for "presumption of innocence." Does anyone see the word "innocence" in that phrase? Hellooooo...

And is there any doubt in anyone's mind that "innocent" is the adjective form of "innocence"? Hell, I learned that in grade school.

Michael

[Greybird]

I think the distinction between innocent and not guilty is a lot of semantic baloney people say to sound like they are saying something.

They are synonyms under the law, fer Keriiiisakes.

Being innocent of a charge is identical to being not guilty of a charge. They are both the opposite of being guilty of a charge.

Are you pretending that this qualifies as rational argument?

Equating these terms is a colloquialism, used for discussion and headline convenience, and is not how they are actually used under the law.

(In this country. You keep citing Brazilian actions and mores, so with any such pronouncement, I have to wonder how much you actually know of this country you've returned to.)

In this particular lynch-mob atmosphere, it can't be stressed often enough that the entire burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They either didn't have enough evidence, or were incompetent at proving their case, or both.

A presumption of (legal) innocence is just that. She was presumed innocent. Since no guilty verdict (for murder) came down, she remains innocent. She is now, however, also judged not guilty, which new reality has a concrete consequence: she cannot be retried.

When a capital crime is at issue, such precision is at its most essential. If you think it's optional, try deciding you don't mind them being casually equated if you are about to be railroaded to the gas chamber or injection table.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Greybird

[Brant Gaede]

Steve, "not guilty" "under the law" means innocent "under the law." You cannot be both under and outside the law in the same time and respect. If a jury says "not guilty" the jury also says "innocent." Then, in the subsequent TV interview, a juror may say, "She was guilty, in my opinion, but the case was not proved." That the case "cannot be retried" apropos "not guilty" is why the jury has those two choices only, specified under the law. The law could have specified "guilty" or "innocent," but it didn't and doesn't. Either way, double jeopardy, yes or no, is a separate question. JR made that point with his simple post about Canada. It's taken me a time to figure that out.

--Brant

Edited July 8, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Starbuckle]

Yes, the verdict was fine, except for the small fact that the defendant murdered her daughter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you pretending that this qualifies as rational argument?

Steve,

Actually, no. It's a rational observation, coupled with an informed opinion.

Also, I have no idea what's in your head about that Brazil stuff. I haven't discussed Brazil on this thread, nor Brazilian law.

But if you want to discuss it, among the approximately 35,000 pages of technical documents I translated from Portuguese into English on a professional level, a good portion was legal documents. Who were the clients? Why USA attorneys, of course. Paying clients, dude. Not internet forum expert wannabes. They never had any problem with my understanding of USA law.

To speculate, I believe you try to mind-read others all the time. But I don't know for sure.

If so, in this case, it's piss-poor mind-reading.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve, "not guilty" "under the law" means innocent "under the law." You cannot be both under and outside the law in the same time and respect.

Brant.

This is correct.

The way I learned the philosophy behind this is "A is A."

Michael

[Selene]

[Selene]

Apparently, the "not guilty" verdict option dates back to the Scots [George might know] and a 1728 trial:

Modern use

In modern use, the not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a not guilty verdict. This perception is reflected in the popular paraphrase of "not proven" as meaning "not guilty, but don't do it again". A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to

double jeopardy

. The real effect of a not proven verdict is

stigma

for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person's reputation, as when

socialite

Madeleine Smith

was charged with murder in nineteenth century

Glasgow

but acquitted with a not proven verdict. It has been said,

[

by whom?

]

"You don't go to prison, but nobody will ever talk to you again."

Not guilty

In a notable trial in 1728, a defence lawyer (

Robert Dundas

) persuaded a jury to reassert its ancient right of acquitting, of finding a defendant "not guilty". The case involved

Carnegie of Finhaven

who had accidentally killed the

Earl of Strathmore

. The law (as it stood) required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, if the jury brought in a "proven" they would in effect cause this innocent man to hang. To avert this injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, and brought in the verdict of "not guilty".

The (re)introduction of the "not guilty" verdict was part of a wider movement during the 16th and 17th century which saw a gradual increase in the power of juries, such as the trial of

William Penn

in 1670, in which an English jury first gained the right to pass a verdict contrary to the law (known as

jury nullification

), and the trial of

John Peter Zenger

in New York in 1735 in which jury nullification is credited with establishing

freedom of the press

as firm right in what would become the United States.

Although jurors continued to use both "not guilty and "not proven", jurors tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over the "not proven" and the interpretation changed.

Use in other jurisdictions

The Scottish verdict has not been permanently adopted outside its home country, but it was sometimes used in

colonial Canada

, especially by some judges in southwestern

Ontario

. Its most famous use outside of Scottish law came when

Senator

Arlen Specter

tried to vote "not proven" on an article of

impeachment of Bill Clinton

[3]

(see

Lewinsky scandal

-- his votes on the two articles in question were recorded as "not guilty"), and when, at the

O.J. Simpson murder case

, various reformers, including Fred Goldman,

Ron Goldman

's father, pushed for a change to "not proven" because of what they felt was an incorrect

presumption of innocence

on the part of Simpson.

[4]

A recent proposal to introduce the not proven verdict into the United States is:

• Samuel Bray, "Not Proven: Introducing a Third Verdict", 72
  U. Chi. L. Rev.
  1299 (2005).

Excerpt<br class="br"> In 1807 at the trial of Aaron Burr for treason, the jury was not content to return one of the usual verdicts, guilty or not guilty. The evidence at trial failed to prove Burr's guilt, but the jury was too suspicious of the scoundrel to declare him not guilty. Instead the jury offered this grudging acquittal: "We of the jury say that Aaron Burr is not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us." ¹<br class="br"><br class="br"> Almost two hundred years later, a United States senator echoed the Burr acquittal in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Disliking both of the traditional verdicts, Senator Arlen Specter offered a verdict drawn from Scottish law: not proven. ² His vote was recorded, however, as not guilty. ³<br class="br"><br class="br"> Verdicts other than guilty and not guilty are exceptional in American criminal law, ⁴ yet some legal systems routinely use more than two verdicts. In Scotland, judges and juries in criminal trials choose from three verdicts: guilty, not proven, and not guilty. Not proven and not guilty are both acquittals, indistinguishable in legal consequence but different in connotation. Not guilty is for a defendant the jury thinks is innocent; ⁵ not proven, for a case with insufficient evidence of guilt. One verdict announces "legally innocent" and thus exonerates. The other says "inconclusive evidence" and fails to exonerate or even stigmatizes.<br class="br"><br class="br"> The American verdict of not guilty covers both of these grounds for acquittal. The ...

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, the verdict was fine, except for the small fact that the defendant murdered her daughter.

You don't know that. You only believe that. Do not confuse your opinions with fact.

Only God and the Perpetrator know who dunnit. The rest of us who were not there can only believe or suppose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Yes, the verdict was fine, except for the small fact that the defendant murdered her daughter.

She was found innocent de facto and not guilty de jure.

'Presumed innocent until proven guilty' applies in the courtroom only. Which is why a "not guilty" verdict need not be the same as factual innoncence.

Anyone can do the test on that: Suppose John has murdered his boss and has to stand trial.

John did not confess, there were no eyewitnesses, so the prosecution has the burden of proof in a circumstantial evidence case against John. The prosecution has some good evidence, but it is deemed insufficient by the jurors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The in dubio pro reo role rule kicks in, the verdict is "not guilty".

Is John factually innocent of the crime? Of course not, for he did commit the murder. The prosecution merely failed prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it.

So there is no correlation between a "not guilty" verdict in the courtroom courtroom and factual innocence.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

I take Steve as making the point that the burden of proof of guilt lies on the prosecutor, and that if someone is "not guilty [under the law]" then that merely means that guilt was not proved; it does not mean that innocence was proved, so it does not literally mean that they are "not guilty."

Shayne

[Xray]

I take Steve as making the point that the burden of proof of guilt lies on the prosecutor, and that if someone is "not guilty [under the law]" then that merely means that guilt was not proved; it does not mean that innocence was proved, so it does not literally mean that they are "not guilty."

I just saw we crossposted; I wrote essentially the same in # 61.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I take Steve as making the point that the burden of proof of guilt lies on the prosecutor...

Shayne,

Nobody I know of on OL misunderstands this concept. It happens to be one of the fundamental foundations of our legal system (at least theoretically--which I have to say because in practice it is violated all too often).

However, I do not believe explaining a master of the obvious concept to everyone is a valid reason to turn into a politically correct control freak on what is permitted in using words.

Neither Steve, nor anybody I know of, owns the English language and can dictate that a word has a single meaning only--being that every other use of the word is either wrong, stupid or irrational.

That's just sounding off to sound off.

A more correct manner of expressing this--one that is a bit more respectful of the reader's intelligence and that of the other person in the discussion--is merely to mention that the concept should be kept clear--something like "not guilty under the law doesn't mean the lady didn't do it."

Nah... that's too much like right and easy.

Instead we got sanctimonious bloviating and correcting others that was more suited to displaying Steve's inflated view of himself at the expense of others than any actual clarification of the concept--which I don't believe needed clarifying in the first place, given the high level of intelligence of the people who read and post on this forum.

Consider this. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Except the sun cannot "set" anywhere. The earth turns and our perspective changes. So it's all wrong.

Whoop-ti-do.

There. I'm a sage.

Now for the crusade to feed my vanity. How about I go around and start blasting everyone who says the word "sunrise" and explain in pompous terms that the earth revolves around the sun? That the sun cannot "rise"? As if people didn't know that already.

Is there any point to that kind of stuff?

What a waste of time. That's not thinking and discussing intelligent stuff. That's a cry for attention and an infantile one at that.

I saw Steve's remark in that light.

Michael

[sjw]

Nobody I know of on OL misunderstands this concept.

Every single one of them who agrees with Ayn Rand on patents misunderstands. Also, every single one of them who is wishy-washy on whether they agree with Rand (hello Brant) on patents misunderstands.

It happens to be one of the fundamental foundations of our legal system (at least theoretically--which I have to say because in practice it is violated all too often).

Our culture, including Objectivist culture, is riddled with the evil consequences of misunderstanding this concept. I applaud Steve for underscoring it.

Shayne

[Selene]

Nobody I know of on OL misunderstands this concept.

Every single one of them who agrees with Ayn Rand on patents misunderstands. Also, every single one of them who is wishy-washy on whether they agree with Rand (hello Brant) on patents misunderstands.

It happens to be one of the fundamental foundations of our legal system (at least theoretically--which I have to say because in practice it is violated all too often).

Our culture, including Objectivist culture, is riddled with the evil consequences of misunderstanding this concept. I applaud Steve for underscoring it.

Shayne

Let's have a drink on that!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Our culture, including Objectivist culture, is riddled with the evil consequences of misunderstanding this concept. I applaud Steve for underscoring it.

Shayne,

Does that mean you want to prohibit people from using "innocent" as a synonym for "not guilty"?

Just curious...

btw - I disagree with your characterization of the understanding of people on OL--and I disagree with some of the aspects of your ideas on patents (although I have not had time to go into this in depth). So, does that mean either you or I misunderstands the role of a prosecuting attorney or jury?

Or are you playing the semantics game called "let's ignore the point in order to make another one"?

Michael

[sjw]

Our culture, including Objectivist culture, is riddled with the evil consequences of misunderstanding this concept. I applaud Steve for underscoring it.

Shayne,

Does that mean you want to prohibit people from using "innocent" as a synonym for "not guilty"?

Just curious...

No, a word is just a tag, what's important is the meaning in context.

btw - I disagree with your characterization of the understanding of people on OL--and I disagree with some of the aspects of your ideas on patents (although I have not had time to go into this in depth). So, does that mean either you or I misunderstands the role of a prosecuting attorney or jury?

Or are you playing the semantics game called "let's ignore the point in order to make another one"?

The point is, the concept of "burden of proof" isn't properly understood by the vast majority of people, Objectivists included. Patents are an example of where Objectivists clearly don't comprehend. It's evidence for my point in supporting Steve, even here on OL where you think people know what I don't think they do.

But I think all that was pretty clear in what I already said. You just don't like my position, namely that most Objectivists don't know the first thing about "burden of proof".

Shayne

[Selene]

The point is, the concept of "burden of proof" isn't properly understood by the vast majority of people, Objectivists included.

Shayne

Since the burden of proof rests with you on that assertion Captain America, I am sure that you have a study or solid piece of unshakeable evidence to proffer, right?

[sjw]

The point is, the concept of "burden of proof" isn't properly understood by the vast majority of people, Objectivists included.

Shayne

Since the burden of proof rests with you on that assertion Captain America, I am sure that you have a study or solid piece of unshakeable evidence to proffer, right?

Lay off the beer, and maybe you'll keep up with the conversation.

Shayne

See Ayn Rand's essay on patents.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shyane,

The point was raised in the context of (1) Casey Anthony, and (2) using innocent as a synonym for not guilty.

Since you agree with me that words are just tags for concepts, I presume that you agree that innocent actually is a synonym for not guilty and can be used as one in all correctness.

Now, as to Casey Anthony, do you really believe the people on OL don't understand that just because she was not convicted by a jury, this means she could not have done it?

Sorry, that does not compute. Not on this planet.

If you want to make the case that people do not apply their understanding of presumption of innocence (or burden of proof) to patents, that's another issue. Intellectual property is a higher level of abstraction than murder, so it is entirely possible for people to understand the concept of presumption of innocence, yet not analyze it with respect to patent law.

There's no reason to presume that people do not understand something simple just because they do not apply it to something complicated.

(And I'm not saying they do or don't. I'm just dealing with the logic here.)

Michael

[Selene]

The point is, the concept of "burden of proof" isn't properly understood by the vast majority of people, Objectivists included.

Shayne

Since the burden of proof rests with you on that assertion Captain America, I am sure that you have a study or solid piece of unshakeable evidence to proffer, right?

Lay off the beer, and maybe you'll keep up with the conversation.

Shayne

See Ayn Rand's essay on patents.

So you have no proof as to your assertion that "...the concept of "burden of proof" isn't properly understood by the vast majority of people, Objectivists included."?

.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Does your concept of burden of proof include presumption of beer?

(Just being sassy... )

Michael

[sjw]

So you have no proof as to your assertion that "...the concept of "burden of proof" isn't properly understood by the vast majority of people, Objectivists included."?

.

Note that I'm not indicting the vast majority of people to be thrown into prison or having their property confiscated for their lack of understanding. So, contrary to when Rand advocates confiscating the property of the second inventor, I have no moral burden of proving my assertion here; it's a judgement call based on a lot of experience. And you're just being a stupid punk, like usual. That's a judgement call too.

The evidence regarding Objectivists is in Rand's essay on patents. It is easy to demonstrate the problems there, but I won't do so in this thread. If you want to "duke it out" about patents, create another thread and we can mop the floor with you (if you try to defend Rand's morally repugnant view), if you want.

Shayne

[anthony]

Shyane,

Categorically, shy, Shayne ain't.