Page 1 of 1
Not Guilty vs Acquitted
Posted: Sat 19 Nov, 2005 22.00
by Dr Lobster*
is there a difference between not guilty vs acquitted in english law?
why in some cases when a person is charged with multiple offences are sometimes found 'not guilty' of some and are acquitted of others?
i thought that in english law you are either guilty or your not, so why the different terms to describe the same thing... anybody know?
Posted: Sat 19 Nov, 2005 22.10
by Jamez
They both mean the same thing.
You can be found not guilty or you can be acquitted.
Acquitted is used by the press, especially more biased outlets such as the BBC, Daily Mail, Sun etc., to make it sound as though there is still a level of doubt over the innoncence, but in reality the person has been found not guilty.
Either way, not guilty and acquittal both mean the same thing.
Posted: Sat 19 Nov, 2005 22.35
by Nick Harvey
They should introduce the option of a "not proven" verdict, as they have in Scotland.
What it, basically, means is "we know you're guilty, you bastard, but there just isn't enough hard evidence to put you down for a hundred years or hang you by the neck until you are dead".
Posted: Sun 20 Nov, 2005 02.32
by DAS
Nick Harvey wrote:They should introduce the option of a "not proven" verdict, as they have in Scotland.
What it, basically, means is "we know you're guilty, you bastard, but there just isn't enough hard evidence to put you down for a hundred years or hang you by the neck until you are dead".
And in some parts of Glasgow, that's what they actually read out as a verdict.