>Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means.
No, it isn't. Stop attempting to slaughter language and logic. All "not guilty" means is the state of guilt could not be proven. That does NOT imply innocence.
It is completely possible for a defendant to be guilty of a crime but be found not guilty -- that is, neither innocent nor guilty -- by virtue of lack of evidence, or process error, or whatever.
Here is a professor proving you wrong [1]:
>This means that the jurors found [the defendant] not guilty; it does not mean that they found her innocent. It does not even mean that any or all of them believe she had nothing to do with the demise of her daughter. All it means is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony committed the offenses of which she was accused (other than giving false information to the police, the minor charge she was convicted of). In other words, the prosecution failed to meet the high standard to which society holds the state in criminal cases.
And here is a criminal lawyer proving you wrong [2]:
>Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty." ... A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client's name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."
No, it isn't. Stop attempting to slaughter language and logic. All "not guilty" means is the state of guilt could not be proven. That does NOT imply innocence.
It is completely possible for a defendant to be guilty of a crime but be found not guilty -- that is, neither innocent nor guilty -- by virtue of lack of evidence, or process error, or whatever.
Here is a professor proving you wrong [1]:
>This means that the jurors found [the defendant] not guilty; it does not mean that they found her innocent. It does not even mean that any or all of them believe she had nothing to do with the demise of her daughter. All it means is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony committed the offenses of which she was accused (other than giving false information to the police, the minor charge she was convicted of). In other words, the prosecution failed to meet the high standard to which society holds the state in criminal cases.
And here is a criminal lawyer proving you wrong [2]:
>Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty." ... A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client's name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."
Now will you drop the unjustified arrogance?
[1] - http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-07/news/29747182_1_reason...
[2] - http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Criminal-Defense-Overv...