What does not guilty means ?
“We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the defendant… not guilty”. A wage of undescribable release for some, a storm of unbearable rage for others. The elders (with all due respect for the millennials) might recall this sentence resonating in the streets of Los Angeles in 1995 while the verdict of the historic O.J. Simpson’s case was delivered. The crowd, unlike the public opinion, was split into yells of euphoria and tears of disappointment.
How can the same words provoke two diametrically opposite reactions? What does not guilty really mean?
Common ideas vs. legal definition
The reactions on social media when Benjamin Mendy was finally found not guilty of all the charges against him were astonishing. It clearly demonstrated our very subjective conception of the not guilty verdict and, consequently, the number of various definitions in the air. While some celebrated the acquittal and pointed out the false accusations that ruined both private and professional life of an innocent man, others deemed him “guilty anyway”, arguing that not guilty doesn’t mean innocent but simply means there wasn’t enough evidence to condemn him.
Here appears the importance of a clear and collective definition and a bit of legal culture. Otherwise, self-proclaimed judges on social media determine, by their own rules, who is innocent and who is guilty out of ignorance of the case and the rights of the parties.
Not guilty is a type of plea or verdict in a criminal case. […] As a verdict, not guilty means the fact finder finds that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. (Wex, LII at Cornell Law School)
Indeed, not guilty does not mean innocent. But not guilty does not mean guilty neither. As tautological as it sounds, it is sadly necessary to remind the people who carry this irresistible need to comment on any criminal case. Because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guiltiness of a defendant, it does not give anyone the absolute right to call this person “guilty anyway”. Moreover, such a statement could fall under defamation, which is a serious matter.
Therefore, both teams mentioned above are wrong (and a bit extreme) due to voluntary or unvoluntary disregard for the number of causes that can lead to a not guilty verdict.
Legal vs. factual meaning of not guilty
First, we need to understand the burden of proof in a criminal case. From a US perspective, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The notion of reasonable doubt can be difficult to grasp as it is particularly theoretic. In clear terms, the prosecution’s evidence must convince the jury that there is no other rational explanation than the defendant’s guilt. It’s the highest standard of proof in the American judicial system, emanating from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. However, this standard is specific to criminal cases. For instance, civil cases only require that a jury or judge believe there is more than 50% probibility of guilt, which implies that one can be found liable but not guilty, like O.J. Simpson. Most judicial systems globally share this exigency in criminal cases in order to reach a level of certainty. The severe consequences of a criminal conviction, which can consist of capital punishment, deprivation of liberty, or financial retribution, justify such a requirement. Also, the common law system, and likewise other legal systems, rest upon the principle that condemning an innocent is worse than letting a guilty person go free. In the Anglo-Saxon context, this principle is referred to as the Blackstone’s ratio.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. (W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1769.)
From this understanding, we can deduce that between guilty and innocent, there is a large gray zone that a not guilty verdict cannot express. In other words, not guilty legally means that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to convict the defendant; but factually, it can mean a hundred things. It could mean that there was no clear evidence because the defendant is perfectly innocent. It could mean that the prosecution did a terrible job. It could mean that the defense strategy was mind-blowing. It could mean the jury was not sensitive to the arguments presented. It could mean the most crucial evidence could not be admitted to court because of a procedural violation. Unless you assist in the entire proceedings of the trial, you can’t have a clue as to what led to a not-guilty verdict. Actually, even if you do, you are still not in the jury’s or judge’s mind to fully comprehend their reasoning.
In summary, in a courtroom, a victim’s accusation and weak evidence are not sufficient to reach a guilty verdict and sentence a person. I would argue that it is not enough to apply a social sentence (like ostracism) either, no matter what the cancel culture’s verdict is. Although history has shown that unambiguous wrongful acquittals occur, like in the first trial of Rodney King, we should keep in mind that in every case there are a number of critical details that slip from our grasp, making us unable to overthrow someone’s innocence. The only reason we know the first Rodney King’s trial was a miscarriage of justice is because everyone saw the video. The denial of Benjamin Mendy’s acquittal, however, is not based on any factual and fair proof but rather on an emotional ideology according to which one considers true any woman’s accusation toward a man, especially a famous man. My point is not that the judicial system is always right and that we should take it as the ultimate truth. My intent is to stress the complexity of legal cases and the danger of our lack of misgivings, which lead us to jump to conclusions as if we had the wisdom and knowledge necessary to take a position.
So, we see that as a backdrop to this reflexion about the meaning of a non guilty verdict appears the issue of its social interpretation, which can completely differ from its legal definition. Thus, a wrongfully accused individual might not receive the social acquittal he is entitled to expect.
Not guilty verdict and its indelible social stigma
Wording matters because it supports our conception of reality. As a negation, “not guilty” can be insidious information for our minds. In fact, negation tends to be way more confusing than affirmation, as psychologists have revealed. To process the sentence “John is not guilty”, some of us conceptualize the idea of guilt first and then dissociate it from the subject to reach the intended meaning. A couple of issues stem from such a process. Indeed, one will be more inclined to focus on the main word instead of the negation tag. In an experiment run by Just and Carpenter in 1976 (Eye fixations and cognitive processes), when participants were shown a probe that said “is not north,” referring to the location of a plus sign, their eye movements were focused on the north rather than the south position. It indicates that their attention is on the negated word and not the general meaning of the sentence. Moreover, some research has explored the effect of negation on memory. According to the authors, if we conceptualize the clear opposite of the word negated, then we are more likely to preserve the original information. If not, the study concluded that “during comprehension one may activate associations that are opposite to the intended meaning of the negation, so that in the long run, receivers of the negated message information might remember the message as if it had not been negated (e.g., ‘John did not harass the secretary’ will activate associations of harassment and John might be remembered as the one who did harass the secretary).” (Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (2004). “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).
If we combine this linguistic effect with the mediatic treatment of criminal cases implicating public figures, we realize that an acquittal can completely fail to clear one’s trampled innocence. Mass media hold an important responsibility and benefit from a huge influence. If they sometimes disregard the first, they are fully aware of the latter. The accusation can be on the front page, and the acquittal news can be a couple lines down on the bottom of page 18. We witness a stunning example currently with Andrew and Tristan Tate’s case. Although the trial didn’t start, the very first accusation has been so widely spread that a lot of people, including journalists, believe that Andrew Tate has been charged with rape, which is false. This idea comes from the fact that the early accusation has gone more viral than the charges being dropped. It will be very interesting to observe the outcome of this case, its mediatization, and the public’s reactions if they are found not guilty.
A not guilty verdict is definitely not a guarantee of a bright new reputation, particularly these days. On the other hand, it can sometimes be abusively used as a synonym for innocence. To avoid those drastic divergences between the verdict and its social reception, some advocate for a new verdict system.
What about a third verdict ?
“With a high standard of proof, such as beyond a reasonable doubt, the public will know that some defendants are being acquitted because of insufficient evidence, not because of actual innocence. With that knowledge, the public will see the acquittal in a two verdict system as stigmatizing and tarnishing.” (Samuel Bray, Not Proven: Introducing a Third Verdict)
How to rebrand the not guilty verdict? Some people promote a third type of verdict, which can be tricky. Scotland is a well-known example of the three verdicts system. A Scottish jury has the choice between guilty, not guilty, or…not proven. It is a second form of acquittal with the exact same consequences as a not guilty verdict: none. The judge or jury can reach such a conclusion when they doubt the defendant’s guilt but don’t find the evidence sufficient to convict him. I said tricky; I should have said confusing. If not guilty means one is not proven guilty, how could “not proven” be anything but a duplication of the not guilty verdict? I consider that with a not proven verdict, there is no raison d’être for a not guilty verdict; rather, it would make sense to introduce an innocent one. This system has been deeply questioned by law practitioners, and its detractors see the not proven verdict as a “second-class acquittal”, which eventually benefits the defendant. The Scottish government itself has repeatedly expressed its will to abolish the not proven verdict.
California didn’t embrace the three verdict system; however, the state allows a defendant to petition for a certificate of factual innocence after an acquittal or a dismissal (Penal Code § 851.8). If he successfully proves his innocence, the police department and department of justice will have to seal and destroy any record of the arrest and criminal proceedings. Although it appears to be a great option for one to clear his name, it can be double-edged since a failure might strengthen the social stigma. It may explain why this procedure is not so frequently used.
The interrogation surrounding the verdict system expresses a growing problem with its social reception. However, I would not say that it’s a semantic issue; I would sooner say we are the issue.
Why can’t we accept that not guilty simply means not guilty?
There are a range of causes that nourish contempt toward the not guilty verdict. First and foremost, the public’s confidence in the justice system decreases significantly in some western countries. According to a Gallup poll in 2022, only 14% of Americans expressed confidence in the criminal justice system. In 2021, nearly half of French people didn’t have confidence in their justice system (Ifop poll). If one does not trust the institution, he will certainly challenge its decisions. Among the multiple elements that explain this distrust is the issue of miscarriages of justice. Last year, The Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK reported that more than one miscarriage of justice was overturned each week. The existence of the Innocence Project in the United States demonstrates by itself the importance of the issue there. Between 1989 and 2017, more than 2100 people were wrongfully convicted in the country, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. So, one could consider that if innocents are not so rarely found guilty, the opposite is likely to happen, and consequently disregard the not guilty verdict. Then, there are various malfunctions in those institutions, like a deficit of human and material resources that causes an expeditious and brutal experience for the parties. Some victims happen to be traumatized by the violation of their rights, wrecked by the judicial process, and finally destroyed by a wrongful verdict. Such a hostile judicial environment can make some completely deny what comes from the criminal justice system, including not guilty verdicts. Nevertheless, as serious as these flaws are, they do not legitimize a cancel culture that tends to establish a popular courtroom where laymen, journalists, or influencers become the justices of our societies; and where the emotion of the moment becomes the law. If this is supposed to be a cure, then it happens to be worse than the disease. There is no wisdom in blind passions. There are no fair rules in a jungle of emotions. How could unfairness ever fix injustice?
I would argue that the issue also stems from a lack of faith. The moment one believes that human justice can be true justice, he will find it unbearable when a breach in the system appears. And he will also believe that his justice is better and try to enforce it. Such a mindset can only lead a society to chaos. When you are fully conscious that the only genuine, flawless, fair, and unbiased justice comes from The Only One God, then the injustice of humans doesn’t overwhelm you. On the other hand, if you believe that there is a possible setting in this world that would prevent any kind of injustice, then the rage will have you blind, and it’s not the blindness of impartiality but the blindness of ignorant inequity. You will pursue your biased sense of justice by any means (not) necessary, even if it implies tarnishing names and destroying the lives of innocent people, like some so-called “activists”, for the sake of their cause, overlook the false accusations that the #MeToo movement gave rise to.
Besides, it may be a question of us consuming what does not concern us. After all, why would Mendy’s case be any of our business ? We are constantly surrounded by other people’s lives and dramas. As we get hungry, the media rushes to hunt; as we become more voyeuristic, the media becomes more intrusive. There is no need to extrapolate on the negative impact of public and media interest in criminal cases. In a demonstration of despicable audacity and lack of decency, an attorney for media groups stepped into O.J. Simpson’s murder trial to demand that the judge allow access to the explicit crime scene pictures. It illustrates how much morbid curiosity overruns us. With time and the apogee of social media, it got worse, and people tend to be absolutely desensitized to it. Our complacency toward morbid curiosity leads straight to dehumanization. Indeed, we are certainly inclined to rush to judgment when we feel no empathy for a person or consideration for his rights. Notoriety, wealth, or power do not justify a careless accusation of rape, murder, or any other crime; celebrity doesn’t revoke one’s rights to fair treatment nor the public’s due diligence. It is actually disingenuous to criticize and tackle the special treatment of rich defendants by promoting inequity in return. Saying “he is guilty anyway” without hearing his defense, without viewing the evidence, and without fully understanding the case is the utmost manifestation of tyranny, not justice.
Furthermore, it manifests one’s refusal to admit his ignorance. As the public sphere grows increasingly polarized, we are expected to take a stand on every matter. This instigation, if not strain, prevents us from stepping back and remaining silent in front of complex and tricky situations. If freedom of speech seems to be in jeopardy today, I am more concerned about freedom of silence. Most people pretended to know if O.J. Simpson did it or not; nevertheless, we actually don’t know. There is no point in debating and engaging about something we ignore. You may think, feel, or believe that a not guilty verdict was inappropriate, but as a matter of fact, you don’t know what happened on June 12th, 1994. It is healthy to accept, concede, and somehow claim that we don’t know; this is a barrier to falsehood and a cocoon for truth. Our societies take a path of exponential distrust, doubt, and uncertainty. There will come days when technology will make Rodney King’s type of video not as compelling as it used to be. There are and will be cases where the pursuit of clout will challenge the limits of human deceit. In the midst of all the commotion, it will be not only easier but necessary for us to accept that not guilty, simply means not guilty.
With Peace and Joy,
T.O.B
