The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved. The decision of the appellate court was based on factual guilt of the appellant, which overruled the concept of legal guilt used at his original sentencing. The decision of the Crown was based on the presumption of guilt based on the individual’s social behavior, which made his conviction highly unusual (“R. v. Lalumiere, 2011 ONCA 826 (CanLII)”, 2011). 
In any court system, there are several issues that arise, meant to guide the judge in deciding on the innocence or guilt. There is a wide range of ways to interpret a case before arriving at the final verdict. In most situations, the best way is to prove the guilt of an accused. The facts presented before the court are vital to prove that a criminal act occurred. A determination should be made in a case to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At times it is the full discretion of the judge to make a decision, which can deviate from the facts of the case. Guilt can either be determined by factual guilt or legal guilt. 
Factual guilt implies that a person actually broke the law and committed the cat they are accused of. Factual guilt makes it easier to determine innocence or guilt since the evidence presented is enough proof of guilt. Legal guilt, on the other hand, means that the court prosecutor can prove criminal responsibility beyond doubt. This means that one may be factually innocent but legally guilty, and normally ending up in a wrongful conviction (“Guilt – Factual Legal Guilt”, 2017). Legal and factual guilt presented before a court of law can be used to successfully achieve a conviction. The burden of proof, for either factual or legal guilt, lies with the lawyers. In some instances, the judge is faced with factual guilt, but the accused turns out to be legally innocent, which contributes to a technical win. An example of such a case is an individual being found guilty of shooting another but presents his argument as self-defense. In this situation, the individual actually committed the crime but then in the eyes of the law, they are innocent. It is not enough to conclude guilt or innocence based on fact or law, but rather combine them to ensure that the ruling made by the judge cannot be overturned. 
Legal guilt should take precedence over factual guilt. In criminal law, guilt rests on the presumption of free will, whereby the individuals choose their own actions and are subject to the external judgment of the right or wrong of their actions. Proving that an individual deserves the blame for a criminal act is more important than the factual determination of guilt. The law is designed such that punishment cannot be awarded where there is no imposition of the blame. Therefore it better to stick to the rule of law in litigating criminal cases, to ensure that the right conviction is made. Philosophically, legal guilt implies that an individual was aware of the illegality of the actions they committed and chose to do them anyway. When the law has been broken, there should be no way around it, since there is an expectation to uphold the written laws. 
The prerequisite for legal guilt is culpability of wrongdoing, meaning that an individual must feel guilty for their actions (“Guilt – Factual Legal Guilt”, 2017). Although legal guilt may lead to wrongful conviction, when referencing the factual aspect of the case, it still logical enough to be used as the presumption of conviction. Society creates laws, based on norms accepted worldwide, and hence they should stick to those regulations in the determination of guilt or innocence of an individual. The justice system is all about litigating court cases in accordance with both written and unwritten law. If a lawyer in a criminal court provides a strong argument before the judge, to prove the criminal culpability of an individual beyond any reasonable doubt, then that should be used as the basis of judgment. 
Factual guilt can be removed by legal innocence. A defendant who actually committed a crime can be acquitted of the crime if the legal framework cannot persuade the judge or jury of guilt. The whole purpose of courts is to ensure that the rules designed to determine morality are safeguarded. The infallibility of the criminal trial caused by the application or legal guilt should be overlooked if the main goal is to assign blame to a particular individual. Legal guilt is an essential component of the criminal law and guarantees that the due process of law is followed as provided in the Canadian law. Criminal cases based on factual guilt convictions, overlook the sole reason for creating a Constitution. The same constitution that assigns rights to the citizens should also be used for determination of guilt or innocence. Bypassing the legal requirements, to assume factual guilt is an ultimate betrayal of the justice system. 
It is important that courts, use the concept of legal guilt in their trials, to avoid greater evils, such as shooting in self-defense. Factual guilt can be used to manipulate the justice system, absolving many individuals of their crimes, which they were actually guilty of. The concept of legal guilt weakens all guilt defeating doctrines, which can be used to subvert the due legal process. Judges and juries have the responsibility of upholding moral values of the society, without being swayed by any justifications of criminal activities. An individual arrested for selling drugs, but defend themselves by claiming they used the money to buy drugs for a sick relative, is guilty. There are no provisions in the law that state that someone may commit crimes, as long as they have a legitimate excuse. As such legal guilt should be highly recommended in the criminal justice system, to ensure that justice is served accordingly. 
R. v. Lalumiere, 2011 ONCA 826 (CanLII). (2011). Retrieved 22 December 2017, from
Guilt – Factual Legal Guilt. (2017). Retrieved 22 December 2017, from