Why does the government say you’re innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn’t it be not guilty until proven guilty unless there is sufficient?


10 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago

    There is ZERO legal difference between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.

    The 'government' says nothing. The principal in common law is that all are innocent until their accuser(s) can prove otherwise, with sufficient evidence.  The standard in US law is that when a person is charged with a crime, they must enter a plea of either not guilty or guilty. The word 'innocent' is not used in formal proceedings.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Often time charges are reduced or dropped.  It doesn't matter if there is evidence, a person should be treated as if they are innocent until they have been found guilty in court.  Evidence is often thrown out by the court.  Let's say the police bust your door down without a warrant, seize a bunch of stuff from your house then arrest you.  There is evidence but the police did not use the proper procedure to obtain the evidence so the judge throws out the case and finds you not guilty.  Would you want everyone treating you as if you were guilty?

  • 1 month ago

    Because they need proof before convicting someone of a crime 

  • 1 month ago

    "Innocent until proven guilty" is a NON-legal phrase referring to the concept that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • xyzzy
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Actually the phase is not "you’re innocent until proven guilty" it is "you are assumed  innocent until proven guilty".  That is because you do not have to prove that you are innocent, the government must prove that you are guilty.

  • 1 month ago

    Not guilty = innocent. So, you just asked if it should be the way it already is.

    Are you ESL?

  • 1 month ago

    There are two major schools of justice-

    1. Innocent till proven guilty

    2. Guilty till proven innocent

    Please note that proving guilt in the USA is the way it is done for now. The need is to prove guilt beyond "reasonable doubt". Such as it should be. Traditionally it takes two or more witnesses to show guilt.

    Consider this:

    If you were arrested for a crime that was committed three years ago- could you prove your innocence. I doubt it. Most of us do not know where we were on Oct. 23, 2017. If we keep a journal, maybe we could come close to being able to provide innocence. Think about how sure you could be that you saw James at second and Maple at 3 pm on that date!

    What I am saying is you could be locked up, innocent and end up doing time for a crime that you did not do if your rule was applied. If the police wanted to close the case, all they would have to do is arrest some one- any one and the crime would be solved. The guilty might still run free (and most likely would) under such a justice system.

  • Jeff S
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Because that's justice.

  • Rick
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    don't mess with our Constitution ..........................

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Its not the government its the judiciary 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.