Hello Pabllot, Innocent: When a person lacks knowledge of evil. So usually children are innocent. Lacking also the intention and capacity to injure and do wrong. " He is innocent about night life in a big city." He is devoid of it , didn't experience it before. He might understand what it is about ,but doesn't participate. Naive: When a person is very simplistic lacking guile and experience of life. Being unaware of the tricks to deceive someone. The person doesn't know ,is gullible and would get therefore in trouble. You can deceive a naive person ,because he doesn't understand your tricks and is devoid of worldly experience ,but it doesn't mean necessarily he is innocent , he could possibly be prone to do evil at the same time. An innocent person doesn't do harm or intend to injure others, because of his good nature rather than a lack of understanding the nature of evil. He is not necessarily naive . I hope the difference is clear now :)

Innocent - not guilty of a crime or offence. Examples: "Nobody would believe that I was innocent." "I didn't kill him - I'm innocent!" Davies shouted. Naive - showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. Examples: "It would be naive to think that this could solve all the area's problems straight away." "I was so naive - I believed everything the military told me." Try to use a dictionary Pabllot.

Naïve is a French loanword indicating having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication while innocence is a term used to indicate a general lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence refers to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime. Innocence can also refer to a state of unknowing, where one's experience is lesser, in either a relative view to social peers, or by an absolute comparison to a more common normative scale. In contrast to ignorance, it is generally viewed as a positive term, connoting an optimistic view of the world, in particular one where the lack of knowledge stems from a lack of wrongdoing, whereas greater knowledge comes from doing wrong. This connotation may be connected with a popular false etymology explaining "innocent" as meaning "not knowing" (Latin noscere). The actual etymology is from general negation prefix in- and the Latin nocere, "evil" or "guilty". cowboy...

Jura ,although you mistook "naive" for "ignorant", but I think this definition adds a good aspect showing that "naive " has more association with ignorance than "innocence" does.

Hi Pabilot, If you look at the etymology, the difference is quite clear: ignorance is originally related to [absence of] knowledge and innocence is originally related to [absence of] evil or guilt. "ignorant c.1374, from O.Fr. ignorant, from L. ignorantia, from ignorantem, prp. of ignorare from in- "not" + Old L. gnarus "aware, acquainted with," from Porot-L. suffixed form *gno-ro-, related to gnoscere "to know" (see know). Form influenced by ignotus "unknown." Cf. also see uncouth. Colloquial sense of "ill-mannered" first attested 1886. Ignorance is attested c.1225, from O.Fr. ignorance, from L. ignorantia." Source and further information: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php "innocent (adj.) 1340, "doing no evil, free from sin or guilt," from O.Fr. innocent (11c.), from L. innocentem (nom. innocens) "not guilty, harmless, blameless," from in- "not" + nocentem (nom. nocens), prp. of nocere "to harm." Meaning "free from guilt of a crime or charge" is from 1382. The earliest use was as a noun, "person who is innocent of sin or evil" (c.1200)." Source and further information: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php