27 Dec 10
The Scottish legal system has a unique third verdict, Not Proven; thus cases tried under Scottish law may result in a verdict of Proven (ie, Guilty), Not Guilty, or Not Proven. The third verdict works as follows:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-02710.pdf
"The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt[...] It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations."
Would it be desirable to incorporate the option of this third verdict into other legal systems?
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeIt seems pointless to me to have an extra category with the same legal ramifications as one of the other two. "Not guilty" has no independent moral connotations in the US; it simply means that the evidence presented did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Scottish legal system has a unique third verdict, Not Proven; thus cases tried under Scottish law may result in a verdict of Proven (ie, Guilty), Not Guilty, or Not Proven. The third verdict works as follows:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-02710.pdf
"The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acqu ...[text shortened]... d it be desirable to incorporate the option of this third verdict into other legal systems?
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed.
It seems pointless to me to have an extra category with the same legal ramifications as one of the other two. "Not guilty" has no independent moral connotations in the US; it simply means that the evidence presented did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeI'd say no. The process of "incorporating" this third verdict would be difficult.
The Scottish legal system has a unique third verdict, Not Proven; thus cases tried under Scottish law may result in a verdict of Proven (ie, Guilty), Not Guilty, or Not Proven. The third verdict works as follows:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-02710.pdf
"The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acqu ...[text shortened]... d it be desirable to incorporate the option of this third verdict into other legal systems?
27 Dec 10
1 edit
I say yes. Inspite of the parity between the legal consequences it may serve useful in (potential) future cases that there is a clear demarcation between a jury failing to find a person guilty through insufficient evidence either way or a technicality, and failing to find them guilty because the evidence suggested they weren't.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergWhy?
I say yes. Inspite of the parity between the legal consequences it may serve useful in (potential) future cases that there is a clear demarcation between a jury failing to find a person guilty through insufficient evidence either way or a technicality, and failing to find them guilty because the evidence suggested they weren't.
Should a person suffer some sort of social penalty for being found "not proven"? Would that change defense strategies, where defense attorneys have to employ risky strategies because a client demands a straight "not guilty" verdict?
The civil system can deal with other ramifications of potentially wrong conduct. I see no point in allowing the criminal system to punish someone on the strength of something less than a guilty verdict.
27 Dec 10
1 edit
Incidentally, the phrase "not proven" did have an interesting ramification in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial. They needed 67 votes in the Senate to remove him from office. Knowing that they were not going to get them, GOP leadership nevertheless wanted a majority of 51 to vote to remove him for symbolic reasons.
They had 50 votes for and 49 against removal. Arlen Specter was undecided. Republican leadership was under the impression that he was going to vote "not proven and therefore... present" and they'd have their 50-49 majority. But Specter instead voted "not proven and therefore... not guilty," tying the vote at 50-50.
Not that this has any real bearing on the thread, but it's a point of tangential interest.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderLord Clyde, chief of the Scots judiciary from 1954 to 1972, justified the existence of the third verdict as follows (the quotation is taken from the same document as the content of the original post):
It seems pointless to me to have an extra category with the same legal ramifications as one of the other two. "Not guilty" has no independent moral connotations in the US; it simply means that the evidence presented did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
"It gives a jury, who have some lingering doubts as to the guilt of an accused and who are certainly on the evidence not prepared to say that he is innocent, the chance to find the charge against him not proven. If that third choice were eliminated and if the jury had only two alternatives left, it is almost inevitable that in the situation that I have just envisaged they would hold that their doubts of guilt were not enough to amount to reasonable doubt and he would be convicted. In the experience of all of us there are many cases where a verdict of not proven has been reached and where had that verdict not been available the jury would have found the accused guilty, and there are many men and women today in Scotland who have been acquitted on a not proven verdict and who, had it not been available to them, would have been in prison".
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeNot proven is a "kick up the ass" for the Crown. A way of telling people we know the accused is as guilty as sin but regrettably we have been unable, at this point in time, to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, so we have had to let them off.
The Scottish legal system has a unique third verdict, Not Proven; thus cases tried under Scottish law may result in a verdict of Proven (ie, Guilty), Not Guilty, or Not Proven. The third verdict works as follows:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-02710.pdf
"The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acqu ...[text shortened]... d it be desirable to incorporate the option of this third verdict into other legal systems?
I don't think the idea should be adopted elsewhere.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderAnother comment from a Scot in favour of the "Not Proven" verdict; this is the politician Lord John McCluskey, opposition spokesman for Scottish legal affairs from 1979 to 1984:
It seems pointless to me to have an extra category with the same legal ramifications as one of the other two. "Not guilty" has no independent moral connotations in the US; it simply means that the evidence presented did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
"In my experience, the not proven verdict has come to be used in certain particular circumstances and I should regret its disappearance for that type of case. A classic example of that is where a woman alleges that she has been raped. The jury accepts her evidence as credible and reliable but, for whatever reason, the Crown is unable to produce corroboration for that evidence or the corroborative evidence is destroyed in some fashion with the result that the jury, applying the well-known rule in Scotland about corroboration of all material facts, is unable to return a verdict of guilty; and yet it believes the complainant. The jury can then say "not proven". The jurors are saying that they do not disbelieve the woman but that the case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt in view of the lack of corroborative evidence. That is a very important safeguard which I have seen applied many times.
Unfortunately in rape cases it happens, even in the cases which reach court—and many do not even reach that far—that the corroborative evidence is wholly unconvincing, albeit that the woman herself is readily to be believed and relied upon."
27 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Should a person suffer some sort of social penalty for being found "not proven"? Would that change defense strategies, where defense attorneys have to employ risky strategies because a client demands a straight "not guilty" verdict?
Why?
Should a person suffer some sort of social penalty for being found "not proven"? Would that change defense strategies, where defense attorneys have to employ risky strategies because a client demands a straight "not guilty" verdict?
The civil system can deal with other ramifications of potentially wrong conduct. I see no point in allowing the criminal system to punish someone on the strength of something less than a guilty verdict.
That question can of course be recast as:
Should a person A suffer some sort of social penalty for person B being found "not guilty"?
To explain what I mean here, suppose it is the case that A (Alice) alleges she was raped by B (Bob); if Bob is found not guilty of this charge (but only just not guilty) Alice may have to suffer the social consequences of accusing Bob of committing rape by her and his peers (even if she was right to do so!) since the not guilty verdict implies she lied.
An argument for my position is that if a person gets not proven, then supposing they were actually not guilty, we don't expect to see them hauled in front of the courts for a similar charge in the future, and so they haven't really been punished to any great extent. On the otherhand, if they were infact guilty (and got away with it) then is reasonable to expect it more likely they will be facing a similar charge in the future (they got away with it once, perhaps they'll get away with it twice). In this case the not proven verdict will come back to haunt them.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by adramforallThat assumes that the people who received a "Not Proven" verdict would otherwise have been found "Not Guilty"; Lord Clyde's comment quoted above suggests that the existence of a third verdict may have spared some people who would otherwise have been found guilty.
Not proven is a "kick up the ass" for the Crown. A way of telling people we know the accused is as guilty as sin but regrettably we have been unable, at this point in time, to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, so we have had to let them off.
I don't think the idea should be adopted elsewhere.
However, this would seem to point to flaws in the Scots legal system itself... and I'm not personally advocating that this verdict should be more widely adopted.
27 Dec 10
5 edits
Originally posted by sh76Indeed that is interesting. I've seen conflicting reports about who actually decided that Specter's "Not Proven" would count as a "Not Guilty" vote. Was it Specter himself, William Rehnquist, or someone else?
Incidentally, the phrase "not proven" did have an interesting ramification in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial. They needed 67 votes in the Senate to remove him from office. Knowing that they were not going to get them, GOP leadership nevertheless wanted a majority of 51 to vote to remove him for symbolic reasons.
They had 50 votes for and 49 against remov t that this has any real bearing on the thread, but it's a point of tangential interest.
27 Dec 10
I like the idea of a Not Guilty verdict meaning the defendant was PROVEN to be innocent, versus Not Proven being an aquital because the evidence wasn't sufficient. A lot of people are found not guilty but they still have a cloud over their head because they haven't been declared truly innocent and incapable of the crime.
OJ was found Not Guilty LOLOLOL Not Proven would have been a more appropriate. option. Sort of. If you're a moron that thinks he didn't do it.
27 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamInterestingly, Lord McCluskey was of the opinion that if one verdict was to be scrapped in Scotland, it should be "Not Guilty"; the jury should merely be instructed to determine, as was the case before 1728, whether specific allegations were Proven or Not Proven:
I like the idea of a Not Guilty verdict meaning the defendant was PROVEN to be innocent, versus Not Proven being an aquital because the evidence wasn't sufficient. A lot of people are found not guilty but they still have a cloud over their head because they haven't been declared truly innocent and incapable of the crime.
The reason is that in a criminal trial, leaving aside matters of detail, there is only one question. It is not the question, "Is he guilty or is he innocent?". It is not the question, "Is he guilty or is he not guilty?". The only question is, "Has the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt? Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused man?". Logically, the answer is yes or no.