Question of the week 4: Exoneration

Hi and welcome to this week's Question of the week! For this week, "exoneration" will be covered in the following question:

Question: Does being exonerated mean the end of guilt?

The word exoneration is used to describe a person who is accused of committing a crime or is blamed for a wrongdoing, but due to the lack of information, use of wrong information, or evidence that contradicts the accusation, the charges and/or blame are dropped. One such example is O. J. Simpson, who was not found guilty for killing his wife. Another example may be when someone is blamed for not doing work, but then provides a doctor’s note as evidence to show that it was not possible to work. In both cases the person was exonerated. But does that mean the guilt of the crime or the blame ends after being exonerated?

Depending on the situation, the person can still be seen as at fault. Factors such as bribery or lack of information may lead to exoneration, but may also twist the truth. This may lead to the creation of conspiracies, doubts over the legal system, or fear of favoritism, just to mention a few. A verdict is based on the opinion of people, and although in certain cases there are specific facts that prove a person’s guilt, it takes a story along with the evidence to come to a final conclusion. May it truly represent the truth or not. Thus, a “not guilty” verdict from a judge or jury does not necessarily mean a person is not at guilt. Likewise, being given the blame does not necessarily mean that person is at fault.

In short: Being exonerated is based on combining facts to create a story, which then is converted to a verdict. It however does not mean the actual truth is uncovered, whereby the guilt may still stay with the individual.

Have any opinions or questions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!