I have always thought the antonym of "guilty" is "innocent", but apparently it's just "not guilty". Even juries seem to agree.
But why? Aren't they antonyms? Or is there a subtlety I'm missing here?
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Not guilty is a verdict or formal finding by the legal system that a defendant is not culpable for the crime with which the defendant was charged.
If someone charges you with a certain crime, the judge/jury are there to decide whether you are guilty, or not guilty of the crime in question. Stating that you are innocent would technically generally speak about your life and personality in a way that you've never done anything bad in life. Not guilty, on the other hand, can and is used to express specifically what you are not guilty of, for example not guilty of killing my workmate.
Therefore, the following is technically correct:
Judge: How do you plead?
You: I'm not innocent, nobody is, but I'm not guilty of what I'm charged with.
From a lawyer's blog:
When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if you're innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations, you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, [or] there was no crime, [or] they arrested the wrong person, [or] they could not prove their case; any one or combination of the above can produce the "not guilty" verdict.
The legal system in the US at least is founded upon the presumption of innocence. Thus the only finding a jury or judge can find in a criminal court is proof of guilt or absence of proof of guilt. A jury cannot, and should not, prove that a defendant is innocent, they need only find that they are not guilty, and then they are assumed innocent in the eyes of the law as a matter of course (whether or not they are actually innocent or not is another matter entirely).
I think you misunderstand what exactly an antonym is. It is a word that has the opposite meaning. It is not a word that means everything that isn't included in the first word.
Perhaps a Venn Diagram would help. You can consider antonyms as a Venn Diagram with two circles representing the meaning of A (Guilty) and its opposite B (Innocent). If the two words are antonyms, then in the diagram, there will be no overlap between areas A and B. They will be disjoint. (There are other conditions too, but those won't show up in a Venn Diagram).
However, logically we could also talk about the entire area outside of A, which would be "not guilty". Clearly this encompases the entirety of "innocent", but also some areas outside of it.
1 not guilty of a crime or offense: the arbitrary execution of an innocent man he was innocent of any fraud [predic.] (innocent of) without; lacking: a street quite innocent of bookstores [predic.] (innocent of) without experience or knowledge of: a man innocent of war's cruelties
2 [attributive] not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences: an innocent bystander
3 free from moral wrong; not corrupted: an innocent child simple; naive: she is a poor, innocent young creature
4 not intended to cause harm or offense; harmless:
So the OED gives precedent to innocence in a particular sense, so it is okay to say "I'm innocent of murder", and plead one's innocence to a crime. The courtroom usage "not guilty" is perhaps a jurisprudent nod to the assumptions made amidst uncertainty: none of us are "innocent", yet we're all assumed innocent, unless shown otherwise, and so the endeavor is proving guilt. It's an indication of perspective, as I think it's just as well that defendants are defending their official state of innocence.
I recently came across the Wikipedia article about the Wicked Bible, a Bible published in 1631 containing a typographical error: they left out the word "not" in the seventh commandment: "Thou shalt commit adultery."
According to this article the omission of "not" was considered quite a common mistake in printing. There's a reference to a change in the Associated Press style guide, which until 2004 advised using "innocent" instead of "not guilty" for this very reason.
There is one situation which should be considered innocent -- free from all fault.
There are four situations which would preclude guilt. Given the question, "Did you steel my car?"
If any one of those arguments succeeds, then the defendant cannot be considered guilty.
As a side note, admission cascades -- justification admits definition and assertion and redefinition concedes that the defendant moved the car.