Hi all. I hope you’re all well. Today’s blog will be quite serious in nature, as I look into the difference between being found ‘not guilty’ and being innocent. I will also talk about the nuances around the law and morals.
Trigger warning: I will be talking about rape at various points. Nothing graphic at all, but the subject will come up. So, if this is likely to upset you, please stop reading here.
The law is a difficult subject to get your head around. On a very basic level, it’s simple: if you break the law, you’re a bad person who will be arrested by the police and put in prison. That’s certainly the version most young children get taught.
As you get a bit older, you’ll start to understand the law a bit deeper. It isn’t just the police putting baddies in jail; there are courts, judges, lawyers/barristers, juries, and a whole judicial system in place to determine whether someone is guilty or not, and how long they must serve in prison if they are.
That’s where the majority of people’s knowledge ends. And that’s understandable; the law in its entirety is very complex and is not something a layman would necessarily have a good grasp of. Although it is understandable, this lack of knowledge can lead to some worrying misunderstandings.
Not too long ago, a footballer named Benjamin Mendy was found not guilty on a number of counts of rape and sexual assault. This had been a saga that had lasted for a number of years, with Mendy suspended from playing football during this time and also serving some of the time in custody.
Upon his not guilty verdict for all counts, a slew of footballers rushed to social media to congratulate him and to bemoan the notion that his career had been derailed because of some womens’ ‘lies’. A lot of the posts had an almost fearful “if it can happen to him, it could happen to any of us” slant.
This avalanche of social media activity was surprising for three reasons. Firstly, professional footballers are notorious for staying impartial (at least vocally) on any number of divisive issues. Although there are some exceptions, such as Marcus Rashford using his platform to push for the poorest kids in the country to be fed, or former Arsenal defender Hector Bellerin talking about veganism or environmental issues, most of the time, footballers keep their mouths shut. So, it was very telling that they felt comfortable in expressing their opinions on this subject.
Secondly, it revealed a point of ignorance that is mostly prevalent amongst men: this idea that it is likely to be falsely accused of rape by a woman. Apologies for my bluntness here, but, statistically, a man is more likely to be raped by another man than he is to be falsely accused of rape by a woman.
Less than 2% of reported rapes end up with a criminal conviction in the UK, too. So, even in the very unlikely event that you are falsely accused, the odds of you being convicted are miniscule.
Thirdly – and, this is the crux of my blog, so pay special attention to this part – it showed us that too many people believe being found ‘Not Guilty’ is the same as being innocent.
On the face of it, these two things can appear to be the same. They are certainly used interchangeably in some sections of the media. Let’s look at a hypothetical example:
Person A steals a car. They take it for a joyride and then dump it somewhere. The police think they know who is responsible and arrest Person A. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) believes that they have enough evidence to prosecute, so Person A is put on trial. By the end of the trial, the jury isn’t 100% sure, so they deliver a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict, and Person A goes free.
Person B has never stolen a car, or anything, for that matter, and is completely innocent. With this in mind, are Person A and Person B the same? Clearly not. Likewise, if we were to believe that every person not convicted of a crime was innocent, does that mean that every drug dealer yet to be apprehended by the police is innocent?
We often talk about being innocent until proven guilty, and that is important from a legal standpoint. But we should also consider morals in situations like these. There can, at times, be a world of difference between what is legally wrong and morally wrong.
The famous example often used to illustrate this is the question, “If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is he wrong/bad/a criminal (delete as applicable)”? Certainly, by the letter of the law, this man would be considered a criminal, albeit very small-time. But I’d like to think that most right-minded people wouldn’t have any moral objections to someone stealing food in desperate situations.
Quick sidebar: If you see someone stealing nappies, calpol, baby formula, etc., no, you didn’t! Move on with your life and pretend you saw nothing. Nobody steals baby supplies for fun; if they’re doing it, it’s likely the only way they can provide for their baby.
On the flip side of an act that is technically illegal but is probably morally fine, there are also certain machinations that aren’t illegal, but they are frowned upon morally. The big one that springs to mind is wealthy people storing money abroad so that they can pay less/no tax.
Comedian Jimmy Carr was one such celebrity who was found to be doing this a few years back. Although he at first staunchly defended himself, claiming that he had done nothing illegal and had paid all the tax he was required to (and that was true, by the way), such was the public outcry that he felt he had no choice but to backtrack and move all his money back to the UK.
It cost him more money, yet he ‘did the right thing’ in the end. He had done nothing illegal, but his moral failing led to a change of heart. Who knows, perhaps morals had nothing to do with it? Perhaps he calculated that the negative publicity might harm his reputation and future earnings, therefore costing him more money in the long-term than the increased tax would.
Either way, it fascinates me to try to wrap my head around the different facets of the law and how certain labels make us feel about an individual. For some, someone being accused of a crime is tantamount to them being guilty. For others, everyone is innocent until they’re found guilty. Some feel that those found innocent should be completely exonerated, legally, of course, but also in the court of public opinion. Others feel that being found not guilty isn’t necessarily the same as being innocent, as I highlighted above.
What is clear, to me at least, is that there isn’t a one size fits all label for everyone who finds themselves under the scrutiny of the law. Each individual must be judged on a case by case basis. Which, of course, is how it literally works in a court of law. But, in the pubs, in the cafes, in the media, on social media, or wherever we’re discussing these matters, we’d do well to be slow to judgement, but also slow to forgiveness. Only fools rush in and all that. Will we ever move away from our hasty hot takes? The jury’s still out on that one.
Thanks as ever for reading. I hope it wasn’t boring or bad. If you didn’t like it, please don’t be angry. You must remember, my peers and I, we’re just normal men. We’re just innocent men. Stay out of trouble, and I’ll catch you next time. Bye-bye.
Rob Recommends
The Afterparty – TV – 9/10
I love a good murder mystery. Clue, for me, remains as one of the most underrated comedies of all time. More recently, I’ve also really enjoyed Knives Out and Glass Onion. The Afterparty is made by the creators of the Daniel Craig led films.
What’s unique about this is that each episode features basically the same story but is told from a different characters’ perspective each time. Each version is also told in a different genre too, so one episode might be a rom com, the next might be in the style of an action movie.
This show is really entertaining and, like all good murder mysteries, it’s impossible to know who the killer is right until the end. This is a must watch.
Loki – TV – 8/10
The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) isn’t for everyone. Martin Scorsese certainly had a few choice words to describe it. While I can understand where he’s coming from, up to a point, I wholeheartedly disagree.
The MCU has almost single-handedly popularised comic book culture. Prior to the MCU, there were superhero movies, but these tended to be more standalone. The X-Men and Spider-Man films from the early 00s are testament to this (and are all actually Marvel characters, but are licensed by other studios, which is a long story for another time). Likewise, the Dark Knight trilogy is truly great, but I feel like that did more for Christopher Nolan than it did for comic book culture.
The MCU embraced a whole glut of lesser-known characters and made them household names. Loki being one of them. I can’t really get into the plot without potentially spoiling something, so let me just say that this is a fun, bonkers show that really adds both context and closure for a lot of the connected storylines across some MCU films. And that’s what I call a glorious purpose.
You – TV – 8/10
The creepy Netflix show, following the misadventures of stalker and weirdo, Joe. The creepiest thing of all? Perhaps how much you end up rooting for him, despite all the terrible things he does. I hope it’s not just me that feels that way…
I remember saying to my wife after the first season that I hoped this wouldn’t just be the same thing over and over again year after year. For the life of me, I couldn’t see how they had managed to stretch the story over four seasons (with the fifth and final season coming out next year). But You does what all good shows do: it evolved and grew. Yes, the central themes, more or less, stay the same, but the plot feels different every time, which is refreshing. Definitely one to watch.
A Rob Blog 