4 ms·

That’s what “found innocent” means. There’s no other definition in our legal system.

freehunter 7y ago
Exactly. The default setting is "innocent until proven guilty", so if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law.
- mrob 7y ago
  The full phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". It's specifying how people should be treated by the legal system, not stating whether they are in fact innocent or not.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    >It's specifying how people should be treated by the legal system, not stating whether they are in fact innocent or not. How is that different from > if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law ?
- DanBC 7y ago
  > they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law. No. Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty. The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child. The family court will have their own fact-finding hearings, and since they work on a different burden of proof (criminal courts require "beyond all reasonable doubt", civil courts require "balance of probabilities") they may find that he did rape his child, and prevent him having any further access to the child. The earlier not-guilty verdict will carry little weight. See this from England: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-x-files-or-the-truth-is-out-there-but-can-a-civil-court-rehearing-really-find-it/ http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-x-files-or-the-tru... > The difference between the civil and criminal standards of proof mean that a person who is not found guilty of doing harm to the higher criminal standard required in the Crown Court, may yet be found to have done harm on a “balance of probabilities” test, i.e. that it was more likely than not that they did it. This is often a cause of confusion and consternation about the justice system. Or this: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/guilty-until-proven-innocent-lecture-by-professor-jo-delahunty-qc/ http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/guilty-until-proven-in... > The difference in the purpose and the approach of the two systems accounts for the way, in some cases, a person may be acquitted of having harmed a child because the jury in the Crown Court is not satisfied so that they are sure (beyond reasonable doubt) of that person’s guilt. Yet the same person may be found, by a single judge sitting without a jury in the family court, to have been liable for harm and/or likely to cause harm to the child/ren whose best interests therefore require intervention by the state to protect them.
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    In case of a (possible false) rape accusation, what kind of evidence is enough to separe a father from his children for 5 or 10 years and not enough to send him to prison?
    - DanBC 7y ago
      How are you defining rape? A criminal trial may define it as "the victim has to use vigorous physical force to fight off the attacker, and if she (or he) doesn't then it's not rape". The family court may be saying that it's sex without consent. But also jurors don't convict rapists because "he looks like a nice boy", "it'll ruin his life", "boys will be boys", "well, she was drunk", "well, she did go in that room with him". Rape is under-reported, under-recorded, under-investigated, under-prosecuted, and under-convicted. Malicious rape allegations are rare. Abusive family members are not rare.
      - gus_massa 7y ago
        I agree, but in your previous comment you were discussing a very specific case: > Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty. > The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      There are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil cases in the US. For a criminal case (to send someone to prison) the plaintiff needs to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no other plausible explanation. For a civil case, the plaintiff needs to show a preponderance of evidence, meaning their version of the events is merely more likely than not. I believe the latter standard applies to custody as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Standard_of_proof_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Standard...
sowbug 7y ago
See https://www.apnews.com/4a19347996e34a5f904543d1f656b04f https://www.apnews.com/4a19347996e34a5f904543d1f656b04f for example.

Exactly. The default setting is "innocent until proven guilty", so if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law.

mrob 7y ago
The full phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". It's specifying how people should be treated by the legal system, not stating whether they are in fact innocent or not.
- freehunter 7y ago
  >It's specifying how people should be treated by the legal system, not stating whether they are in fact innocent or not. How is that different from > if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law ?
DanBC 7y ago
> they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law. No. Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty. The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child. The family court will have their own fact-finding hearings, and since they work on a different burden of proof (criminal courts require "beyond all reasonable doubt", civil courts require "balance of probabilities") they may find that he did rape his child, and prevent him having any further access to the child. The earlier not-guilty verdict will carry little weight. See this from England: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-x-files-or-the-truth-is-out-there-but-can-a-civil-court-rehearing-really-find-it/ http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-x-files-or-the-tru... > The difference between the civil and criminal standards of proof mean that a person who is not found guilty of doing harm to the higher criminal standard required in the Crown Court, may yet be found to have done harm on a “balance of probabilities” test, i.e. that it was more likely than not that they did it. This is often a cause of confusion and consternation about the justice system. Or this: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/guilty-until-proven-innocent-lecture-by-professor-jo-delahunty-qc/ http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/guilty-until-proven-in... > The difference in the purpose and the approach of the two systems accounts for the way, in some cases, a person may be acquitted of having harmed a child because the jury in the Crown Court is not satisfied so that they are sure (beyond reasonable doubt) of that person’s guilt. Yet the same person may be found, by a single judge sitting without a jury in the family court, to have been liable for harm and/or likely to cause harm to the child/ren whose best interests therefore require intervention by the state to protect them.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  In case of a (possible false) rape accusation, what kind of evidence is enough to separe a father from his children for 5 or 10 years and not enough to send him to prison?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    How are you defining rape? A criminal trial may define it as "the victim has to use vigorous physical force to fight off the attacker, and if she (or he) doesn't then it's not rape". The family court may be saying that it's sex without consent. But also jurors don't convict rapists because "he looks like a nice boy", "it'll ruin his life", "boys will be boys", "well, she was drunk", "well, she did go in that room with him". Rape is under-reported, under-recorded, under-investigated, under-prosecuted, and under-convicted. Malicious rape allegations are rare. Abusive family members are not rare.
    - gus_massa 7y ago
      I agree, but in your previous comment you were discussing a very specific case: > Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty. > The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    There are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil cases in the US. For a criminal case (to send someone to prison) the plaintiff needs to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no other plausible explanation. For a civil case, the plaintiff needs to show a preponderance of evidence, meaning their version of the events is merely more likely than not. I believe the latter standard applies to custody as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Standard_of_proof_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Standard...

sowbug 7y ago

See https://www.apnews.com/4a19347996e34a5f904543d1f656b04f https://www.apnews.com/4a19347996e34a5f904543d1f656b04f for example.