What is the difference between the terms "not guilty" and "innocent?"

It cannot be proved that an individual is "innocent." Juries say "not guilty" because guilt was not proved in the case.

The terms have no significant difference in meaning. Juries and judges use them the same way in a court of law.

"Not guilty" is a verdict used in criminal cases only. However, an "innocent" verdict can only be used in civil cases.

A jury will say "innocent" instead of "not guilty" if the person seems to have had no part in the case before the court.

Question

Stanley Chung

Social Studies

17 August, 13:47

What is the difference between the terms "not guilty" and "innocent?"

It cannot be proved that an individual is "innocent." Juries say "not guilty" because guilt was not proved in the case.

The terms have no significant difference in meaning. Juries and judges use them the same way in a court of law.

"Not guilty" is a verdict used in criminal cases only. However, an "innocent" verdict can only be used in civil cases.

A jury will say "innocent" instead of "not guilty" if the person seems to have had no part in the case before the court.

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Ireland Moran · Answer 1

It cannot be proved that an individual is "innocent." Juries say "not guilty" because guilt was not proved in the case.

Innocent is an antonym of guilty but is not synonymous to "not guilty". It encompasses more than the term "not guilty". Innocent is defined as someone that is free from moral wrong or is not corrupted or pure.

In the court of law, one cannot say that the accused is innocent. The accused can only be given the verdict of "not guilty" if he or she is found without guilt on the case he or she is facing.