Factual Guilt vs. Legal Guilt
When people talk about “defending the innocent” or “defending the guilty” they’re talking about factual guilt — did the person do what he’s accused of doing? — rather than legal innocence or guilt — has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did what he’s accused of doing (and that no defenses apply)?
The distinction is crucial to an understanding of how and why I do what I do.
Whether they did what they’re accused of or not, everybody I represent in trial is legally innocent; they remain that way unless the government can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (either in a jury trial or with a guilty plea).
Whether my clients are factually innocent or factually guilty — whether they did what they’re accused of doing — isn’t directly relevant to their defense. Often in America factually innocent people are found guilty; more often (I devoutly hope) factually guilty people are not found guilty.
It doesn’t matter much to me whether my clients did what they’re accused of; what matters most is whether the government can prove its case against them.
Technorati Tags: criminal defense, philosophy, guilt
About The Author
omg that was soo confusing … lol
Ok, so if the defendant is actually innocent (he/she did not commit the crime) but found legally guilty (court proved that he/she did), the defendant will still perform their sentence?
Yes. If the justice system gets it wrong, the person suffers the consequences.
[...] evidence was grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented, then his guilt was not proved and he was legally innocent. No doubt it would be quite a coup if Texas was forced to acknowledge that. It’s only the [...]
“more often (I devoutly hope) factually guilty people are not found guilty.” I devoutly hope that you meant it the other way around! haha!
No. I meant it the way that I wrote it. Please read the entire sentence again: I devoutly hope that the acquittal of a factually guilty person is a more common occurrence than the conviction of a factually innocent person.
Ohhhhhhh! hahaha. Got it! The grammatical structure in that paragraph was a little misleading… But thanks!
Not misleading. Sophisticated.
“Not misleading. Sophisticated.”
…Love it!
“Often in America factually innocent people are found guilty; more often (I devoutly hope) factually guilty people are not found guilty.”
Are you telling me this is good english?! Really? Cus if you think so, that’s sad. Read it again yourself. I have a couple of things to say to you, sir.
1) You’re a stubborn man
2) You just had to refuse to edit it even when 2 out of 5 people who commented on your blog said your article was “confusing” or “misleading.”
3) When inquired, you were able to clarify yourself with fewer words with better sentence structure!
“I devoutly hope that the acquittal of a factually guilty person is a more common occurrence than the conviction of a factually innocent person.”
So why didn’t you use that to edit your blog?! (sign of your stubbornness)
4) It’s not a habit for me to make a fuss out of something so trivial, but when I saw your cockiness, I just had to.
5) You may be an excellent attorney, however, mistakes happen to everybody. And when they do happen, it’s our job to humble down and accept it as our mistake — and not be a jerk about it.
Good day!
Yes, this is good English, in exactly the way that “You may be an excellent attorney, however, mistakes happen…” is not. Parentheticals are tricky.
More than five people have read this post. Two—one of whom was anonymous, started his comment with “omg,” and ended it with “lol,” and therefore does not count—have complained.
The balance either understood my sentence structure, or misunderstood it but thought it reasonable and consistent that I hope for factually guilty people to be found not guilty (since that’s a safety margin for the factually innocent).
I also am not writing for the very small minority of readers who have occasional trouble with my sentence structure. If everyone were able to understand me, I wouldn’t be writing up to my full potential.
If I’m feeling benevolent I’ll clarify, as I did here, but I’m probably not going to make changes to a four-and-a-half-year-old post because a couple of people complain.
A stubborn jerk? Okay. Toss “arrogant asshole” in there too. I’m okay with it.
Mr Bennett,
Stumbled onto your blog while trying to decipher the difference in factual guilt as opposed to legal guilt.
Although opposed to our current form of juris prudence and the American legal system, it’s laws and execution, I find the study and reading of man made laws to be fascinating.
I’ve misplaced the book that discussed law around the world from the viewpoint of a particular culture and the difference in justice and mercy and am amazed how different cultures perceive right and wrong.
Thanks for your blog.
Rodney Halley