Comment by mindslight

Abstractly I would say not guilty means innocent. But having just sat on a jury for a drunk driving case where the defendant seemingly did do what was alleged but yet the key evidence was excluded in limine (for philosophical reasons that I consider very good), I see where you're coming from.

But the difficulty then becomes addressing the perverse incentive of "innocent" vs "not guilty" (I don't love your terms but I'm just reusing them), where a local judge is incentivized to declare merely "not guilty" to save the city money. While things are always going to come down to the frailty of human judgement, it seems like this might be a setup to "change things" while the status quo doesn't actually change.

I'd also still question why there really needs to be two separate categories. Most of the harm in this case is coming from elective overzealous actions by the police. If they had to pay for damages they caused to any "not guilty", then they'd work to reduce those damages (no extradition, lower/no bail, etc). For the case that I was on, the damages would seemingly be limited to one night at the police station, and attorney fees. And most of the cost of the attorney was only necessary due to the prosecution insisting on bringing a case it knew it wouldn't win. So if the defendant is truly "not guilty" (as we the jury quickly found), then why should the defendant be on the hook for those costs-as-punishment ?