28 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeJury instructions are rather clear on this point in the States. I don't find such a scenario likely.
Lord 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 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 innoc ...[text shortened]... n a not proven verdict and who, had it not been available to them, would have been in prison".
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukePerhaps there's an argument there for removing some elements of the corroboration requirements (whatever they may be) but I hardly think it would be of much satisfaction to a rape victim that her rapist was found Not Proven and faced no punishment.
Another 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:
"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 ...[text shortened]... ly unconvincing, albeit that the woman herself is readily to be believed and relied upon."
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, there is a good point to the "not proven" verdict.
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.
Sometimes a wife, for example, will have butchered her husband in bed. Then it turns out this same husband was raping the daughter and beating the wife for 10 consecutive years.
If found guilty she'll get time for man-slaughter at the least.
The jury in Scotland, generally, in such a case will bring in a "not proven" verdict.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by shavixmirIf she knew of the rapes and put up with the beatings then she is complicit in them, not "not proven" and not "innocent". Throw the hag in gaol.
Actually, there is a good point to the "not proven" verdict.
Sometimes a wife, for example, will have butchered her husband in bed. Then it turns out this same husband was raping the daughter and beating the wife for 10 consecutive years.
If found guilty she'll get time for man-slaughter at the least.
The jury in Scotland, generally, in such a case will bring in a "not proven" verdict.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeSounds awfully silly, so I say no.
Would it be desirable to incorporate the option of this third verdict into other legal systems?
However, though I'm not a lawyer or nothin', it's my understanding that in the U.S. "Not Guilty" really means "Not Proven" -- which is to say the evidence against someone is found insufficient to prove guilt. Of course, since in theory one is innocent until proven guilty, it's been my opinion for some time that if the evidence against a defendant is lacking, then the defendant should be found "Innocent." Right? "Innocent" until proven guilty.
The terminology used by the legal systems of most countries seems inherently condemnatory in nature, for some reason. I'm sure the terms are merely traditional, but they don't jibe with the modern ideals of justice.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by WajomaSure... she might not be scared for her life or anything like that. Just keep up that old belief that everything is either right or wrong. Moron.
If she knew of the rapes and put up with the beatings then she is complicit in them, not "not proven" and not "innocent". Throw the hag in gaol.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by WajomaShe could be forced to let her daughter be raped. You don't know.
She lets her daughter be raped for ten years and you have trouble deciding whether that is right or wrong. 🙄
However, for discussions sake, her daughter isn't be raped, the mother is just being beaten up every other day. There. Happy?
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by shavixmirSo you made a mistake with your first scenario no worries.
She could be forced to let her daughter be raped. You don't know.
However, for discussions sake, her daughter isn't be raped, the mother is just being beaten up every other day. There. Happy?
Revised scenario: consenting adults innnit, shes happy enough to put up with it for ten years than she's a mug. My advice in domestic abuse, the first time is the last time, you walk.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by WajomaNo.
So you made a mistake with your first scenario no worries.
You just have no idea of what sort of psychological pressure some women are put under by abusive husbands. And quite often these women were also abused as children. It's such a mish-mash of guilt and fear that you obviously don't quite comprehend it.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by shavixmirI have much more of an up close and personal idea than you think Shav, and the answer is the same:
No.
You just have no idea of what sort of psychological pressure some women are put under by abusive husbands. And quite often these women were also abused as children. It's such a mish-mash of guilt and fear that you obviously don't quite comprehend it.
GET OUT, for everyones sake.
28 Dec 10
Originally posted by shavixmirThe seems to be the exact opposite of a not proven case. That seems to be "proven, but with mitigating circumstances" or some such thing.
Actually, there is a good point to the "not proven" verdict.
Sometimes a wife, for example, will have butchered her husband in bed. Then it turns out this same husband was raping the daughter and beating the wife for 10 consecutive years.
If found guilty she'll get time for man-slaughter at the least.
The jury in Scotland, generally, in such a case will bring in a "not proven" verdict.
If the jury believes the homicide was justified, I don't see anything wrong with a not guilty verdict in this case. On the contrary; if she's morally blameless, then why bother with "not proven" and if she's not morally blameless, why not let her serve time for manslaughter?
28 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThere are psychological reasons that women (or men, for that matter) stay in abusive relationships. It's called Battered Women's Syndrome. Now, I don't think that's a complete justification for murdering the abuser, especially when there's no immediate threat, but the law sometimes allows it to be a partial defense. In NY, for example, a battered spouse who kills the abuser often is subject to a reduced charge of manslaughter.
So you made a mistake with your first scenario no worries.
Revised scenario: consenting adults innnit, shes happy enough to put up with it for ten years than she's a mug. My advice in domestic abuse, the first time is the last time, you walk.
