What does "not guilty" really mean?
Ask anyone in the criminal justice system what a plea of "not guilty" means, and they will probably tell you it means I am putting the government to it's proof. The first thing that happens after charges if filed is that a defendant is arraigned, and asked to enter a plea. You don't expect anyone to enter a guilty plea at that point. It appears though that some people view a not guilty plea as a denial of guilt, and question the ethics of entering that plea when you are really guilty.
Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice provided his usual keen insight into the ongoing discussion about the "two most loaded words in the courtroom". He was responding in part to a post by a former defense lawyer turned prosecutor who argued that a defendant who actually committed the offense acts immorally by entering a not guilty plea. I can't add to Scott's discussion of the futility in trying to impose absolute moral guidelines onto an issue that is not absolute. I do want to pose some of my own questions though.
If we are to impose absolute morality into a criminal case, shouldn't it apply to both sides. Prosecutors know by now the problems with eyewitness identifications. At best, the far from accurate; at worst, they are no more reliable than chance. Does a prosecutor have a moral obligation to bring that information to a jury; does he violate some type of moral code when he argues that a defendant is guilty, where the only evidence is an eyewitness? What about where there are reasons to question the accuracy of the identification?
One of the legal obligations prosecutors have is to disclose exculpatory evidence. What is exculpatory is often in the eye of the beholder. Most prosecutors think there is nothing exculpatory in their file. In fact, at least under the legal definition, there is probably a lot; basically anything which points to someone else, or impeaches a witness's credibility can be exculpatory. Does a prosecutor lie when he says there is nothing exculpatory in the file?
Our system is an adversarial one. Many prosecutors take that to an extreme, and believe it is not their job to determine guilt or innocence, but it is up to the court or the jury. If they have doubts about a defendant's guilt, whether strong or not, do they act immorally when arguing for a conviction?
As Scott points out, there are few absolutes in the criminal justice. A person may commit an act, that may actually be less serious than what he is charged with. Does he have to admit to committing the act, and leave it up to the judge to decide what the appropriate offense is?
This is not something distinctive about the criminal justice system. The same process exists in the civil system. If you are sued, something like a general denial is entered. Is that immoral, if you actually did what you are being sued for?
Let's also look at the flip side of this. If a juror finds you not guilty, most people recognize that means the state didn't meet its burden of proof. However, under the morality approach, does it actually mean you are innocent.
As I stated before, our justice system is an adversarial one. It requires advocates on both sides. The day the defense lawyer becomes a representative of the prosecutor is the day our freedoms are lost. There are other systems that don't involve criminal defense lawyers - however, those trying to impose morality in this decision would never agree to live under those systems.
Not guilty means nothing more than I am going to make you prove your case. To assign any other meaning would turn the justice system on its head.
