There was recently a discussion in the comments at Jurastudentin’s blog on whether there is any difference between the common-law jury verdict of ‘not guilty’ and the German acquittal (Freispruch).
A commenter would have preferred the wording ‘Andreas Türck ist … nicht schuldig’ to ‘Andreas Türck wird freigesprochen’. The question arose whether the wording is different in the USA and Germany.
bq. In den USA sagt man “not guilty”, was aber noch lange nicht “innocent” heißt. Bei einem “not guilty” sind bei weitem nicht alle Zweifel ausgeräumt. Würde man aber “innocent” sagen, würde man eindeutiger davon ausgehen, dass die Unschuld erwiesen ist.
bq. Im Deutschen sind “nicht schuldig” (“not guilty”) und “unschuldig” (“not guilty/innocent”) nicht wirklich unterschiedliche Begriffe. Sie können wohl beide wie ein englisches “innocent” klingen, bei dem so gut wie alle Zweifel ausgeschlossen wurden. Darum denke ich, dass man auf der sichereren Seite ist, wenn man im Deutschen von “Freispruch” spricht, da man zwar nicht ausschließt, dass noch Zweifel bestehen, aber man spricht die Person wenigstens von den Anschuldigungen frei und entlastet sie.
In my experience the wording is sometimes ‘The defendant is not guilty’ and sometimes ‘The defendant is acquitted’ – both mean the same thing. The jury’s verdict is worded ‘not guilty’, though (although there was a ‘not proven’ in Scotland, but to go into that here would confuse the issue).
There’s a summary of the meaning of ‘not guilty’ on the site of Hugh Duvall, an Oregon lawyer who is fond of the colour green.
bq. A verdict of “not guilty” can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client’s name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of “not guilty” can mean a verdict of “not proven.” Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of “not guilty.”
The Jurastudentin discussion came up in the context of the trial of Andreas Türck for rape, and it’s difficult to regard a not guilty decision in many rape cases as anything other than ‘not proven’ (The term verdict is used only for juries, not judges). It was referred to by someone as ‘Freispruch zweiter Klasse’.
We don’t use the term ‘innocent’, but the press will, and for example Michael Jackson’s defence counsel used it. It seems to me if one were to insist on the court finding someone ‘innocent’, it would be necessary for the court to try to find out the truth, and that is something that German courts (try to) do but common-law ones don’t. Common law criminal trials are more like a battle between two sides, in which the prosecutor has to convince jury (or judge) that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here’s some advice for journalists on using the correct terms.
On the Scottish not proven verdict, see here for the history, here for a forum discussion.
