Firstly, it’s essential to note that the accused can plead guilty or *not guilty*. They cannot plead “innocence”. The ruling of “not guilty” does not mean they are innocent, but that the court cannot provide conclusive evidence that they are guilty.
This is the crux of why someone may plead not guilty – assuming that they have some guilt in the case, they may win the case by virtue of the prosecution not being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit is that instead of receiving a lesser punishment – which is still a punishment that comes with a criminal conviction – they receive *no* punishment and no criminal record.
Of course, if they actually are innocent, they are obviously not going to want to plead guilty.
If they plead not guilty, it is up to the prosecution to establish the facts and provide sufficient evidence for the jury to decide if the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. “Reasonable doubt” is the key here – that a normal person would be able to make that conclusion.
For example, if a defendant was accused of murder, and during discovery there is evidence of their fingerprints, a video recording with their face, and even a social media post where that person bragged about it with photos taken on their phone with a time stamp and location marker that puts them in the scene of the murder at that time, a reasonable person would likely piece the evidence together to conclude that the defendant is guilty.
But if there’s *any* reason to doubt the prosecution’s evidence, the defendant must be acquitted. For example, if the murder weapon was never found, this can be a huge blow to the prosecution as it means that they cannot establish a clear link between the defendant and how the victim died. If the defendant knows this, they can bank on the prosecution being unable to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Latest Answers