The problems of the "not guilty" verdict

The problems of the "not guilty" verdict

The criminal justice system has at its heart the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further, it requires that the bench or the jury be certain before they pronounce someone guilty. There are good reasons for these positions, but they do however cause certain problems. 

The person who is acquitted (or found "not guilty") is in an uncertain position. Because of all the well-founded reasons for requiring a high standard of proof, the "not guilty" verdict does not equate to a finding of factual innocence. More and more the simple fact of being charged and tried is taken into account in various civil procedures. Thus the person who is acquitted on the basis of the jury's belief in his innocence may be no better off than the person who the jury considered was probably guilty. 

The other aspect is the plight of the complainant. The verdict of "not guilty" is not a statement of disbelief of the complainant as such. There may be good evidence that the complainant was a victim of harm. However, emphasizing that the "not guilty" verdict is not an exoneration of the accused brings us back to displacing the presumption of innocence, and so impugning all acquitted defendants. There is no easy answer.