There should be three possible verdicts in a criminal trial: guilty, not guilty, and innocent
Posted by PassionateCucumber43@reddit | CrazyIdeas | View on Reddit | 116 comments
“Guilty” would be defined the same as it is currently. “Innocent” would be distinguished from “not guilty” in that, beyond simply failing to prove the defendant committed the crime, it was also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn’t commit the crime. Only someone found guilty would be punished.
This would solve the problem of people being unfairly judged in the court of public opinion. Because the standard for guilt is so high, some people who are in fact guilty may sometimes be acquitted, so people may still be ostracized after an acquittal. This new system would avoid lumping in those whose innocence is plainly obvious with cases that are borderline or more doubtful, while still maintaining the highest standard to impose an actual legal punishment.
armrha@reddit
It’s not possible to prove someone didn’t do a thing, you can only prove they did it or not have evidence that they did
Greedy-Thought6188@reddit
You are essentially against innocent unless proven guilty. It's a slippery slope because it will open doors to someone that cannot prove innocence.
There already is an option for what you want with civil trials.
ActuatorDisastrous29@reddit
I see where you’re coming from but I feel like innocent until proven guilty should be the standard in criminal justice. Nobody should have to feel like they need to prove innocence.
Additional-Goat-3947@reddit
It’s almost like you’re innocent until proven guilty
tomtomtomo@reddit
You're innocent until you're indicted then you can only be guilty or not guilty.
Efficient-Piglet88@reddit
Yep, everyone loves to throw around the "No smoke without fire" crap until its them being falsely accused of something.
gominokouhai@reddit
In Scotland we have guilty, not guilty, and not proven.
PassionateCucumber43@reddit (OP)
That’s basically what I mean. I was just talking in terms of the American system.
AddictedToRugs@reddit
It's kind of the opposite of what you mean. "Not proven" in Scottish law means "couldn't prove they did it, but we sort of think they probably did".
IpsaThis@reddit
No, it's just in a different order. He's thinking:
🏴 Not proven = Not guilty 🇺🇸 🏴 Not guilty = Innocent 🇺🇸
crazy_gambit@reddit
That's exactly what he means by not guilty. Innocent would be the new term to include people we're sure didn't do it.
Ok-Organization1591@reddit
You mean people who aren't guilty?
Fireproofspider@reddit
In the US, Not Guilty = we couldn't prove without a reasonable doubt that they weren't guilty.
What he meant as Innocent was that it's proven without a reasonable doubt that they didn't do anything.
iryanct7@reddit
Usually cases are dismissed when this happens. I guess that’s kind of the same thing as innocent.
Sad_Bridge_3755@reddit
“Ya, we literally had it on camera, he’s at a gas station buying soda when this murder happened, in the opposite side of town.”
Cassandra_Eve@reddit
"How clear is the picture? It's just come out that he has a twin, as close to identical as they come."
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Secret_Duty7667@reddit
I once heard "Not guilty and don't do it again"
LeagueOfLegendsAcc@reddit
The American system already assumes you are innocent until proven guilty. So a not guilty verdict is legally the same as declaring your innocence. But I'm not a lawyer so what do I really know?
PassionateCucumber43@reddit (OP)
Yes, you’re presumed not guilty before the trial, and a not guilty verdict is simply a failure to prove that isn’t the case. It’s not proving it is the case.
Skirra08@reddit
No, you're presumed innocent. Not merely not guilty. The principle of presumed innocence is one of the most important facets of our legal system. I understand what you're trying to say with your argument but it fundamentally misunderstands the American legal system. A requirement to prove innocence shifts the burden to the defendant, even if you keep some middle ground of not guilty, and our criminal justice system requires the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Peanut-Butter-King@reddit
They’re talking about public opinion. People often get treated differently after a case, even when they’re found not guilty, because there’s speculation that they may have done it. If you add in ‘proven innocent’ it would help some of those people. Though I think it would do a lot more harm to innocent people that were only found not guilty instead of proven innocent.
The_Werefrog@reddit
Not exactly. There is an event whereby an accused person is declared actually innocent. This provides some legal benefit to the accused which includes greater settlements for cases of malicious prosecution. In fact, in some areas, until a few years ago, one needed that declaration of actual innocence to even bring a suit for malicious prosecution.
Thankfully, SCOTUS ruled that one simply need not be convicted to bring suit of malicious prosecution.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
boardgamejoe@reddit
I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything.
Cyberspunk_2077@reddit
To be clear, you are still presumed innocent in Scotland, as you are elsewhere. And 'Not Proven' and 'Not Guilty' are indistinguishable in outcome legally.
However, it's been shown that if a jury has the option available, a certain proption of both 'Guilty' and 'Not Guilty' verdicts become 'Not Proven'.
Which implies that a certain percentage 'Guilty' verdicts are not actually beyond a reasonable doubt, but the jury were not willing to give them a 'Not Guilty'.
This experiment showed that "Guilty" verdicts were reduced from 61% to 51%.
Jazzydiva615@reddit
Scotland sounds cool! You in a kilt sipping tea in a castle typing this??
jerdle_reddit@reddit
Yeah, was going to mention that, although I think adding a "definitely innocent" verdict would make a good system.
Guilty - defendant gets punished.
Not proven - defendant does not get punished, but is liable for damages. [This isn't exactly what it does mean, but it should be.]
Not guilty - defendant is not liable for damages.
Innocent - plaintiff gets punished.
Ok-Organization1591@reddit
Why not just have people pick up a hot piece of iron and carry it a distance, then observe their wounds after a time??
If the accused wounds heal quickly, and without infection, then burn the accusor on a fire.
If they are contaminated, and full of pus, then burn the accussed.
If they are slow to heal, but not full of puss, hold them liable for damages.
If a reasonable villager, of sound mind, would agree that the wounds are probably to heal, and aren't very infected, then just leave it at that.
Von_Moistus@reddit
"Guilty or innocent?"
"Innocent."
"Feed him to the Sharkticons."
iknowit42@reddit
If it’s a false accusation, can’t you just pursue them back? If that’s the case, no need to include it in the original verdict.
newaroundhereig@reddit
Was with you till the last part bud
xFblthpx@reddit
Man this is a horrific idea. Just asking for the legal system to be used to threaten and intimidate vulnerable parties even more.
Ok-Organization1591@reddit
Came here to say this
TrekkiMonstr@reddit
Huh the history of that is actually super cool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
JustPlainScrewed@reddit
The US Department of Justice conviction rate Federally is 98%, so say that hard to get convicted part again.
Low-Ball-3831@reddit
Having three verdicts, including “not guilty” as you define it, would mean that even if the defendant was starting from a point of “presumed innocence,” the most likely outcome of every trial would be “not guilty,” leading them from the state of presumed innocence into “possibly guilty.” “Innocent” would be just as difficult to prove and “guilty” assuming the same “beyond a reasonable doubt standard” was applied. The current system places the burden of proof on the prosecution to satisfy all doubts. A three tiered system would add a similar burden of proof on the defense to prove innocence.
Supreme_Pai@reddit
People would still unfairly judge people even if that were changed.
galaxyapp@reddit
Philosophically, it is incredibly difficult to prove something didnt happen. Its very rare that such a case would ever see a courtroom, let alone a verdict. The charges would be dropped as soon as incontrovertible proof was exposed.
With that said, the inevitable outcome of a possible innocent verdict is an even greater assumption that not guilty = unproven guilt. And since 99.999% of trials will have this verdict, it would be counterproductive.
Also keep in mind, the conviction rate in criminal trials is north of 90%. Prosecutors don't waste time on cases without overwhelming evidence. The only real chance of getting off is getting off on some sort of process misconduct. And calling that as innocent is another ackward proposition.
SmoothSecond@reddit
Yes, but we aren't talking about philosophical possibilities. We would be examining an incredibly specific set of facts. We can say with an incredibly high sense of accuracy whether or not a person was at a certain place at a certain time especially with forensic evidence.
Powerful_Wombat@reddit
Yeah, the commenter is conflating a hypothetical situation with the real world. “It’s practically impossible to prove that Santa DOESN’T exist, but it can sometimes be very easy to prove that person A didn’t murder person B”
galaxyapp@reddit
If there is indisputable video evidence of innocence, beyond any skepticism of fake or forgery the trial will end right there. There will be no verdict.
If before trial, there will be no indictment.
Slipperysteve1998@reddit
It's actually quite easy: Buddy wasn't near the shop when a robbery happened but security footage shows him at the mall during the exact time frame the crime took place
GayRacoon69@reddit
Is it that easy though? The security footage could've been altered. They could have a twin. They could've hired a body double. Maybe the person was involved in the planning but not in the event itself. Maybe he's sonic and just ran to the mall really fast
DiggingInGarbage@reddit
For all those potential situations, the law would need to find evidence that could suggest those, you can’t just go “but what if THIS happened?” with no evidence to backup the claim
ccm596@reddit
The law, as written right now and not the way OP suggests, would need to find evidence that could suggest those, yes
GayRacoon69@reddit
I understand that. We're talking about proving innocence though.
In order to prove innocence you need to prove all those things are false
Happy__cloud@reddit
So there would be no trial…no?
Bricklover1234@reddit
I am not a lawyer. In the trial that should hopefully lead to a dismissal. But when found afterwards? I've heard it can be incredible hard to get a retrial in a lot of countries. That means the person might stay a lot longer in prison even when undisputable evidence is found that proves them not guilty.
AffectedRipples@reddit
If they had a bulletproof alibi, why would they ever be taken to court in the first place?
ThereIsOnlyStardust@reddit
It’s very rare that such cases ever make it to court since evidence has to be submitted prior to trial for both sides to see.
grossest2@reddit
I’m far from a legal expert, and this is mostly based off guessing and watching legal tv shows, but I’m pretty sure in most cases where you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn’t commit the crime, the case would get dismissed prior to judgement
MethodWhich@reddit
In the US, due to double jeopardy, what difference would the third verdict cause? Sure if there is definite proof of innocence then they won’t be ostracized, but that’s pretty much how it works already.
Competitive_Worth350@reddit
No it wouldn’t at all. Any superior court judge is going to pretend your no-contest pleas were guilty pleas so another level of innocence would just make it harder for those who were already not guilty/pled no contest to begin with. Also as a business its the courts interest to make money. If finding people “innocent” looked good on them they would probably be doing so already.
Cardsfan1@reddit
The justice system works on prosecutors proving guilt or not. What you are complaining about is media attention to those accused.
That should be what you alter. Maybe the accused should have rights/be treated fairly.
CeterumCenseo85@reddit
Your system would lead to many more people to be unfairly judged in the court of public opinion. Because barely anyone ever would actually clear the insanely high benchmark of being labelled innocent.
Proving someone didn't do something, or that something didn't happen gets you deep into philosophical territory of whether that's possible at all.
sanderv1982@reddit
“Yes, they didn’t say you were guilty, but they didn’t say you were inocent either, you monster…”
Zealousideal_Eye7686@reddit
This is just going to make the lives of the not guilty (already legally innocent) a thousand times worse
Penis-Dance@reddit
I tried to claim innocent on a stop sign violation but they said we don't prove innocence. We only determine guilt.
I had stopped at the stop sign but the cop was just so involved with arguing with his wife at the time that he didn't see me stop. I filed a report against him. Then I got two more tickets that same month. I hired an attorney.
opi098514@reddit
You don’t prove innocents because the burden isn’t on you. The burden is on the prosecution to prove your guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty.
authorinthesunset@reddit
Is that not essentially what we have? Assuming US.
You are innocent until proven guilty. A verdict of not guilty is by definition not proving guilt. Ergo, innocent.
KleeBook@reddit
Something like this exists in the post-conviction world. There is a distinction between factually innocent (wrong person) and legally innocent (evidence should not have been admitted). Groups like the Innocence Project will only take up the cause of the factually innocent.
Omni__Owl@reddit
You cannot prove a negative so this wouldn't really work.
Besides, semantically "not guilty" is already defined as "innocent, especially of a formal charge."
The problem with public opinion is that it does not care much about what a court ruling says. If someone has a hate boner for you, no third verdict type would change that behaviour. Public opinion is based on the truths you want to believe about the world, not what has been proven or disproven. Some times public opinion just happens to align with the verdict.
bshjbdkkdnd@reddit
The reason we don’t do that is because can you put to trial someone who was found not guilty again? And again? And again? It would take a corrupt DA marginal effort to continually retry someone and bankrupt them in legal bills, time away from work etc.
The justice system has enough issues without letting it be easy to railroad someone.
Also proving a negative is very very difficult.
arbitrageME@reddit
I actually kind of like this idea, with the distinction that:
Innocent and guilty both have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". While "not guilty" is what it is now.
If you are "found innocent", then anyone who gave evidence against you can be tried for perjury. Like if an eyewitness ID'd you and said you did the crime, if you're not guilty, then no problem. If you are found innocent, then they couldn't have possibly seen what they did, so something is wrong there.
This obviously excludes factual evidence, like "was this blood yours? Or did you drive a Ford bronco"? These are factual and is fine
But if let's say a cop or detective planted evidence in a "found innocent"case, they would be personally liable too
ccm596@reddit
Charging someone with perjury for being wrong is wild lol, being correct and lying aren't the only two options. There are a thousand reasons that one piece of evidence could point to someone having done something that they didn't do without someone intentionally misleading the court
arbitrageME@reddit
I think there needs to be some element of mens rea and the standard of evidence would be "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you were found innocent, then things like "how did the powder end up in your evidence locker" might be examined. Just standard mistakes or reasonable errors must be overlooked. But evidence given in bad faith, by fraud or with mens rea need to then be punished.
MidAirRunner@reddit
Multiple studies have found that eyewitnesses are often completely wrong. The brain simply cannot store and retain information during a high-stress period. Interviews and trials also often take place hours and days later, further compounding the issue. Slapping a perjury charge for not having superhuman memory would be rather stupid.
rollsyrollsy@reddit
On the other side (the defendant) in the US: 47 of 50 states have a form of plea that does not admit to guilt but agrees that they are unlikely to win and will accept a deal (Alford Plea).
poozemusings@reddit
This would implicitly place a burden on the defense to attempt to prove their innocence, which should never be required. And it would stigmatize anyone not found to be “innocent” and only found to be “not guilty”
warm_rum@reddit
Bingo bango bongo. A fair amount of thought did go into the system - unwieldy as it is
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
grafknives@reddit
Horrible idea.
And comments shows that clearly.
As almost everyone treat here our "not guilty" guy as GUILTY.
this is why we have binary system. If verdict is "not guilty" the person accused is innocent. It has to be like that.
Freedom_Crim@reddit
I’ve had this idea before but my problem was that
There are going to be many, probably most people, who are innocent but couldn’t get that to be 100% believable so they’ll get not guilty. And any who gets not guilty but doesn’t get the innocent charge will just be thought of as guilty by the court of public opinion, which goes against the entire point of being proven not guilty
It sucks when a guilty man goes free, but our entire system is set up to make sure that an innocent person will be treated as innocent
Boringfarmer@reddit
In Scotland there is a “not proven” verdict as well as guilty and not guilty
ziggsyr@reddit
Now anyone who gets a "not guilty" verdict will have no chance of shaking the stigma even if they deserved an innocent ruling but they didn't want to push their luck.
But in North America you CAN be found innocent of criminal charges but then lose a civil case putting you into that grey area that you want to call "not guilty"
criminal cases require a unanimous guilty verdict by all twelve jurors, but a civil case can be done with or without a jury and if it is done with a jury only requires a majority guilty verdict.
Sometimes a criminal can get off criminal charges and avoid jail but can still be successfully sued by the victim.
EarthTrash@reddit
It's very hard to prove a negative. As it is now, not guilty is an exoneration. I don't think many defendants would get an innocent verdict. Other than civil action against slander and libel, you can't really litigate the court of public opinion, unfortunately.
_kilogram_@reddit
I never thought about it that way, this, to me, is a good idea.
mazzicc@reddit
Upvote for crazy, but as an example of how crazy:
You’ve been accused of being a pedophile. Please now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have never slept with a child.
romulusnr@reddit
Incidentally, even in the US system, a prosecution can give up early and ask for dismissal "with prejudice" allowing them to bring up the charges again, which is kind of like the "not proven" scenario.
In the US system, "not proven" is treated the same as "not guilty." That's because it's completely up to the prosecutor to completely prove guilt.
romulusnr@reddit
"Guilty" means "did it."
"Not guilty" then means "didn't do it."
Which is the same as "innocent"
So you mean "not proven" not "not guilty"
Abigail-ii@reddit
But who has the task to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn’t commit the crime? The prosecution is trying to prove the opposite. The defence doesn’t have a police force available to assist proving this.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Ok_Shake_368@reddit
There are already 3 possible verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, and No Contest (or Nolo Contendere)
Guilty is the same as what you are saying
Not guilty means that the court had reasonable doubt that someone committed the crime. If there is doubt, you are presumed innocent.
No contest is where you accept the punishment, but don’t admit to any wrongdoing. This is beneficial for avoiding any lawsuits and your guilt being used against you later.
It seems like the only point of your system would be for public opinion and to show some sort of morality. It seems like that would just be a waste of time for something that doesn’t matter. You can prove that outside of court.
pastramilurker@reddit
I don't see how this could make the public opinion problem anything other than worse!
Usual_Judge_7689@reddit
Guilty, Not Guilty, and Told You So
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Not guilty is innocent. What are you even talking about. And it would do anything to fix the public opinion of you. You’d still get your name run through the muck during the trial
GulfCoastLaw@reddit
Not guilty does not mean "innocent" as a technical matter.
It just means that the court has determined that the state didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Stuck_in_my_TV@reddit
If you are innocent until proven guilty, then legally, not guilty means innocent.
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Yeah and that is de facto innocent as they can no longer charge you with that crime.
TrekkiMonstr@reddit
No, it's not. For the criminal justice system yes, outside of that no. A ruling of innocence could be held probative in civil court, for example, and certainly it would have value in the court of public opinion. The world beyond the criminal justice system exists.
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Ok. The current judicial system is already a train wreck dumpster fire. This would make it even worse
TrekkiMonstr@reddit
That's a different argument. How so?
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Because 12 average people already get it wrong an alarmingly high amount of time like this. Adding a third option would make it worse. I would agree to this option in bench trials I guess
Hawk13424@reddit
Not really. I’d like to see two different rulings. One that means we can’t prove you did it and one that means we can prove you didn’t do it.
Today, both are ruled not guilty and in the public’s eye you can still be considered guilty (e.g. OJ Simpson).
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Well he was guilty he just had good lawyers
bahamapapa817@reddit
Whew I’m glad his thought wasn’t the norm
PassionateCucumber43@reddit (OP)
Not guilty means it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did do it, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn’t do it.
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
It’s absurdly unnecessary and would accomplish literally nothing. And 12 jurors have a hard enough time getting it right with the current guilty/not guilty system.
thedarthpaper@reddit
It would acomplish a better or worse perception of the defendant.
I agree it probably wouldn't be worth the effort, but it would make a difference
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
It would literally do nothing of consequence
Hawk13424@reddit
It might convince me to hire them if I still thought they were guilty. Would you have hired OJ? Would you if the court had instead found him innocent?
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Hired OJ for what?
thedarthpaper@reddit
Bros changing the goalposts already god damnnn
supyours@reddit
It would allow people to scream, " well, he wasn't proven innocent, therefore..."
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Maybe they could allow it in bench trials. I wouldn’t trust 12 jurors to not screw this up
ArtMartinezArtist@reddit
You can be acquitted also. Doesn’t mean you’re not guilty, just means they couldn’t prove you guilty.
Formal_Pension_9456@reddit
Seriously? Acquitted means you were found not guilty lmao
MrTheWaffleKing@reddit
People would still treat not guilty as guilty just as they do innocent half the time now (but it’s way easier to argue to dumb masses)
bradleymonroe@reddit
this sub is for crazy ideas, not dumb ideas
Squ3lchr@reddit
In way there is an "innocent" verdict. A court may find "actual innocence" when the evidence is strong enough to conclude that you did not do it. Generally, this is done in a post-conviction setting or if you are pursuing damages in a civil trial. Also, depends on your jurisdiction.
sonofabutch@reddit
This would be like when they do a replay review in sports and the outcome is either "overturned" (the official was definitely wrong), "confirmed" (the official was definitely right), or "the call stands" (we can't tell so we're going with what the official originally said).
At the end of the hearing, have the jury go talk about and then come back into the courtroom and say, "Upon further review..."