A person might be found "not guilty." That merely means that there was not a preponderance of evidence to "prove" guilt. Completely innocent is an entirely different matter.
The Scottish, I am told, have three verdicts -- innocent, guilty, and not proven, which basically means we think they're guilty, but the state didn't quite prove it.
We don't.
If the concept "innocent until proven guilty" has any meaning, then indeed one is truly innocent if they have been found not guilty. At least in the eyes of thelaw -- there is no third option here. You are entitled to think what you want to, but legally, not guilty means completely innocent, go free with no legal stain on your character.
What do you think would happen if a group of lawyers decided to investigate their own cases and only take cases in which, they were absolutely convinced their client was being totally truthful with them and innocent?
What you are doing is saying that the lawyers should replacle the judge and jury. Same exact thing you're doing. Problem, is, that conflicts with the principle that people are innocent until a court of law finds them guilty. You don't want anybody who MIGHT be guilty to have a lawyer to defend them. I suggest that you start in your life with this principle -- if you are pulled over by the police on suspicion of something, say you only wnt a lawyer to defend you if the lawyer is absoltely, completely, totally confident that you are completely innocent. I guarantee you I woudln't do that. And I frankly doubt you would. |
