Guilty, not Guilty or not Proven.

[Hibrandenburg]

Scottish Tories want to remove the option of the not Proven verdict for juries. I'm by no means a legal expert, but surly having a verdict that represents uncertainty is a good thing? Yes it means that some will walk free due to a lack of evidence, but that has to be better than banging up innocent people by mistake?

[RyeSloan]

Scottish Tories want to remove the option of the not Proven verdict for juries. I'm by no means a legal expert, but surly having a verdict that represents uncertainty is a good thing? Yes it means that some will walk free due to a lack of evidence, but that has to be better than banging up innocent people by mistake?

But if the argument by the prosecution is ‘not proven’ then the person still walks anyway...but with the cloud over their head that they are not innocent, just their guilt was not proven.

I’d suggest the verdict is an unsatisfactory outcome for all. If you can’t prove someone’s guilt then the mantra of innocent until proven guilty should prevail. Ergo they should be found innocent.

If the proposal is also linked to lowering the threshold of what guilty means then I’d be tempted to agree with you. If not then I’d suggest the not proven verdict is an anachronism that is long overdue to be removed.

[Pretty Boy]

I've never really understood the need for the not proven verdict since double jeopardy was all but abolished a few years ago.

Both not proven and not guilty are acquittals in the eyes of the laws. If there is lack of evidence, doubt about the testimony of a witness or lack of corroboration then an acquittal is the correct course of action and not guilty serves that purpose. If new evidence comes to light a new trial can take place.

Every other country in the world seems to manage OK without the 3rd option so I think we would be fine as well.

[H18 SFR]

Without sounding like a member of the A-TEAM, I was accused of a crime I didn’t commit 8 years ago. I remember at the time, baring in mind it was a time of excessive stress and anxiety that I was so glad the jury had the option of both not guilty and not proven.

As it turned out it took all of 5 minutes to find me not guilty and the Sheriff annihilated my psycho ex, branding her an unreliable witness amongst other things - my solicitors told me at that time it wasn’t overly common for Sheriffs to go after witnesses in that manner.

[Berwickhibby]

I've never really understood the need for the not proven verdict since double jeopardy was all but abolished a few years ago.

Both not proven and not guilty are acquittals in the eyes of the laws. If there is lack of evidence, doubt about the testimony of a witness or lack of corroboration then an acquittal is the correct course of action and not guilty serves that purpose. If new evidence comes to light a new trial can take place.

Every other country in the world seems to manage OK without the 3rd option so I think we would be fine as well.

:agree:

[Future17]

Scottish Tories want to remove the option of the not Proven verdict for juries. I'm by no means a legal expert, but surly having a verdict that represents uncertainty is a good thing? Yes it means that some will walk free due to a lack of evidence, but that has to be better than banging up innocent people by mistake?

There's no need for "not proven" as it serves no purpose. If anything, it confuses juries and, arguably, unfairly stigmatises accused who are innocent.


Without sounding like a member of the A-TEAM, I was accused of a crime I didn’t commit 8 years ago. I remember at the time, baring in mind it was a time of excessive stress and anxiety that I was so glad the jury had the option of both not guilty and not proven.

As it turned out it took all of 5 minutes to find me not guilty and the Sheriff annihilated my psycho ex, branding her an unreliable witness amongst other things - my solicitors told me at that time it wasn’t overly common for Sheriffs to go after witnesses in that manner.

That's very uncommon in a jury trial, even after the verdict been delivered. Sheriff taking a bit of a risk...your ex must have been really bad!

[greenlex]

Without sounding like a member of the A-TEAM, I was accused of a crime I didn’t commit 8 years ago. I remember at the time, baring in mind it was a time of excessive stress and anxiety that I was so glad the jury had the option of both not guilty and not proven.

As it turned out it took all of 5 minutes to find me not guilty and the Sheriff annihilated my psycho ex, branding her an unreliable witness amongst other things - my solicitors told me at that time it wasn’t overly common for Sheriffs to go after witnesses in that manner.
Nightmare. I’m still not sure why you would be glad of a not proven verdict tho? I was in court and a not proven verdict was the outcome. I wasnt guilty and it still riles me. I don’t think it would have irked me as much had the verdict been guilty if I’m being honest.

[H18 SFR]

Nightmare. I’m still not sure why you would be glad of a not proven verdict tho? I was in court and a not proven verdict was the outcome. I wasnt guilty and it still riles me. I don’t think it would have irked me as much had the verdict been guilty if I’m being honest.

I was stressed to the max, couldn’t believe it was happening etc. It’s a fair comment you’ve made though.

[H18 SFR]

There's no need for "not proven" as it serves no purpose. If anything, it confuses juries and, arguably, unfairly stigmatises accused who are innocent.



That's very uncommon in a jury trial, even after the verdict been delivered. Sheriff taking a bit of a risk...your ex must have been really bad!

She was a complete screwball in the end. After she gave evidence the prosecution decided not to call their next witness (her best pal).

[lucky]

It’s unique to Scots law and has stood the test of time so why change it?

[Smartie]

I’ve never really understood the need for it but I remember watching the Netflix series “The Staircase” when one of the lawyers (an impressive chap) cited Scots law and the “not proven” verdict as being desirable and sensible rather than a bizarre outlier. In that case “not proven” would have been (based on the evidence presented by the tv programme) appropriate.

There is something strange about a binary system of guilty and not guilty, guilt having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There’s an awful lot of grey that has to fall into one category or another.

I know very little about the law but I’m fascinated by it. If I had my time again, I’d have studied it.

What frightens me is that “the law”, especially criminal law, just appears to be a big game played by lawyers. Us little people might fall into the system from time to time either through our own fault or not and we’re then largely at the mercy of how much we have to spend on lawyers as to whether we get away with it or not. You see idiots and crooks like Donald Trump, Mike Ashley or Dave King and see how comfortable they are with the adversarial legal environment and it makes you wince. Simple things like truth and what actually happened don’t really seem to matter - it’s what you can convince judges and juries of.

[Killiehibbie]

I’ve never really understood the need for it but I remember watching the Netflix series “The Staircase” when one of the lawyers (an impressive chap) cited Scots law and the “not proven” verdict as being desirable and sensible rather than a bizarre outlier. In that case “not proven” would have been (based on the evidence presented by the tv programme) appropriate.

There is something strange about a binary system of guilty and not guilty, guilt having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There’s an awful lot of grey that has to fall into one category or another.

I know very little about the law but I’m fascinated by it. If I had my time again, I’d have studied it.

What frightens me is that “the law”, especially criminal law, just appears to be a big game played by lawyers. Us little people might fall into the system from time to time either through our own fault or not and we’re then largely at the mercy of how much we have to spend on lawyers as to whether we get away with it or not. You see idiots and crooks like Donald Trump, Mike Ashley or Dave King and see how comfortable they are with the adversarial legal environment and it makes you wince. Simple things like truth and what actually happened don’t really seem to matter - it’s what you can convince judges and juries of.
It's all just a game and the only time i'm ever going to be playing i'd rather have 2 verdicts in my favour.

[Smartie]

It's all just a game and the only time i'm ever going to be playing i'd rather have 2 verdicts in my favour.

What do you think from the perspective of somebody who might be a victim of crime?

Fancy seeing a wrong un’ wriggle out on a pretty unsatisfactory not proven verdict when you just know they did it but fell a fraction short of being able to prove it?

[Future17]

It’s unique to Scots law and has stood the test of time so why change it?

Because the negatives outweigh the positives (which I'd argue there are none of).

[Future17]

What do you think from the perspective of somebody who might be a victim of crime?

Fancy seeing a wrong un’ wriggle out on a pretty unsatisfactory not proven verdict when you just know they did it but fell a fraction short of being able to prove it?

I doubt it would matter as "not proven" would be replaced by "not guilty" in that scenario.

[oldbutdim]

I doubt it would matter as "not proven" would be replaced by "not guilty" in that scenario.

Correct.

Dispensing with not proven would NOT result in more convictions.
The 'not proven' is a big help if the victim wanted to pursue the accused through a civil court though I'd think.

[Killiehibbie]

What do you think from the perspective of somebody who might be a victim of crime?

Fancy seeing a wrong un’ wriggle out on a pretty unsatisfactory not proven verdict when you just know they did it but fell a fraction short of being able to prove it?

Leave that up to the professionals to do their job right.

[Peevemor]

I have no great knowledge of the law, but I like the idea of "not proven".

There must be plenty of cases where the majority of a jury suspects somebody is guilty but the evidence is too weak for a safe guilty verdict. Voting not guilty as a jury member in a case like that would really stick in my throat.

[Radium]

My understanding is that Not Proven is a Scottish verdict with the alternative being Proven. Not Guilty and Guilty were British. A jury returned a Not Proven verdict and case law accepted it was a valid judgment.

... haven’t gone to google so apologies if this is rubbish.

Personally I think we should have one verdict for the case passing the beyond reasonable doubt test and only one when it doesn’t. Doesn’t matter which term is used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speedy]

But if the argument by the prosecution is ‘not proven’ then the person still walks anyway...but with the cloud over their head that they are not innocent, just their guilt was not proven.

I’d suggest the verdict is an unsatisfactory outcome for all. If you can’t prove someone’s guilt then the mantra of innocent until proven guilty should prevail. Ergo they should be found innocent.

If the proposal is also linked to lowering the threshold of what guilty means then I’d be tempted to agree with you. If not then I’d suggest the not proven verdict is an anachronism that is long overdue to be removed.

I disagree. If you remove not proven then nobody is found innocent, they are just not found guilty.

I think not proven is good because it means innocent people can be found not guilty, and questionable cases can be found not proven.

Edit: In essence, if you go to a 2 verdict system, in all but name it would be 'Not Guilty' which is removed rather than 'Not Proven'

[G B Young]

I’ve never really understood the need for it but I remember watching the Netflix series “The Staircase” when one of the lawyers (an impressive chap) cited Scots law and the “not proven” verdict as being desirable and sensible rather than a bizarre outlier. In that case “not proven” would have been (based on the evidence presented by the tv programme) appropriate.

There is something strange about a binary system of guilty and not guilty, guilt having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I watched that series a while back too. Quite strange but compelling. As you say, the lawyer was always worth listening to.

IIRC the jury found one of the charges against Salmond 'not proven' earlier this year.

[RyeSloan]

I disagree. If you remove not proven then nobody is found innocent, they are just not found guilty.

I think not proven is good because it means innocent people can be found not guilty, and questionable cases can be found not proven.

Edit: In essence, if you go to a 2 verdict system, in all but name it would be 'Not Guilty' which is removed rather than 'Not Proven'

If you are not guilty of a charge then your are innocent of it. We can argue about semantics of being free from legal or specific wrong but they mean the same thing.

As for removing not proven and leaving only not guilty actually meaning you are removing not guilty and leaving not proven...you are gonna have to run that one past me again!! [emoji23]

[Peevemor]

If you are not guilty of a charge then your are innocent of it. We can argue about semantics of being free from legal or specific wrong but they mean the same thing.

As for removing not proven and leaving only not guilty actually meaning you are removing not guilty and leaving not proven...you are gonna have to run that one past me again!! [emoji23]I disagree. Being guilty and being proven and/or found guilty are entirely different things.

[Speedy]

If you are not guilty of a charge then your are innocent of it. We can argue about semantics of being free from legal or specific wrong but they mean the same thing.

As for removing not proven and leaving only not guilty actually meaning you are removing not guilty and leaving not proven...you are gonna have to run that one past me again!! [emoji23]

As it stands I agree with the bit in bold.

However, you mentioned a cloud hanging over people if they are found not proven. Take away not proven and arguably that cloud hangs over everyone found not guilty, there could be doubt over whether they were genuinely not guilty or whether there was simply insufficient evidence to reach a guilty verdict.

[Future17]

This thread is exactly why "not proven" needs to be scrapped. People think it means something it doesn't.

[RyeSloan]

I disagree. Being guilty and being proven and/or found guilty are entirely different things.

Apols, I’m being a bit slow I know but I’m not quite understanding what yer trying to say here.

[RyeSloan]

As it stands I agree with the bit in bold.

However, you mentioned a cloud hanging over people if they are found not proven. Take away not proven and arguably that cloud hangs over everyone found not guilty, there could be doubt over whether they were genuinely not guilty or whether there was simply insufficient evidence to reach a guilty verdict.

Not for me. The not proven verdict is the one that suggests what you say. To me it smells of ‘aye we reckon they did it but couldn’t quite prove it’...how is that fair to anyone who is on the end of that kind of finding?

Not guilty means the prosecution failed to prove your guilt. And as I said earlier the starting point here should be innocent until proven guilty. Can’t prove it? Then I’m not guilty.

But even if what you say is correct how does retaining the Not Proven verdict improve anything? I just struggle to see what benefit it brings to either side.

[Peevemor]

Apols, I’m being a bit slow I know but I’m not quite understanding what yer trying to say here.Somebody can be guilty of a crime but avoid being found guilty in a court due to a lack of evidence (for example). You as a member of the jury might believe that they're guilty, but shouldn't vote that way as long as there is reasonable doubt. In that case would you rather give a not proven or a not guilty verdict?

[Peevemor]

Not for me. The not proven verdict is the one that suggests what you say. To me it smells of ‘aye we reckon they did it but couldn’t quite prove it’...how is that fair to anyone who is on the end of that kind of finding?

Not guilty means the prosecution failed to prove your guilt. And as I said earlier the starting point here should be innocent until proven guilty. Can’t prove it? Then I’m not guilty.

But even if what you say is correct how does retaining the Not Proven verdict improve anything? I just struggle to see what benefit it brings to either side.Before it meant that somebody could be tried again for the same crime whereas this was much more complicated with a not guilty verdict. I understand that things have now been changed so that there's no longer much difference.

[Pretty Boy]

This thread is exactly why "not proven" needs to be scrapped. People think it means something it doesn't.

Exactly.

Not proven is an acquittal. It implies nothing else in law. As I said above, with double jeopardy essentially a thing of the past it's just a disruptive anachronism.

[RyeSloan]

Somebody can be guilty of a crime but avoid being found guilty in a court due to a lack of evidence (for example). You as a member of the jury might believe that they're guilty, but shouldn't vote that way as long as there is reasonable doubt. In that case would you rather give a not proven or a not guilty verdict?

Ahh got ya.

Yeah I was referring to court outcomes. In your example the clear choice is not guilty as the guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt...

I’m not really seeing the value of anything else and in particular a verdict that suggests they may well have been guilty but no one could prove it, that’s the worst of both worlds.

[Speedy]

Not for me. The not proven verdict is the one that suggests what you say. To me it smells of ‘aye we reckon they did it but couldn’t quite prove it’...how is that fair to anyone who is on the end of that kind of finding?

Not guilty means the prosecution failed to prove your guilt. And as I said earlier the starting point here should be innocent until proven guilty. Can’t prove it? Then I’m not guilty.

But even if what you say is correct how does retaining the Not Proven verdict improve anything? I just struggle to see what benefit it brings to either side.

It retains the option to explicitly state someones innocence, i.e. not guilty. With only 2 verdicts you either prove someone guilty or you don't.

[Peevemor]

Ahh got ya.

Yeah I was referring to court outcomes. In your example the clear choice is not guilty as the guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt...

I’m not really seeing the value of anything else and in particular a verdict that suggests they may well have been guilty but no one could prove it, that’s the worst of both worlds.As a juror, if I believed that someone was guilty but there was reasonable doubt due to weak proof, it would really piss me off to say that they were not guilty.

[RyeSloan]

As a juror, if I believed that someone was guilty but there was reasonable doubt due to weak proof, it would really piss me off to say that they were not guilty.

Fair enough but considering there wasn’t strong enough proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt the my did it then what an option to say aye maybes but ah cannae prove it...hardly seems fair on the accused who you have already just said can’t be found guilty as you can prove it.

I keep going back to it but to me you are innocent until proven guilty and to me that’s that crux of it for me.

I get others see different right enough [emoji736]

[Saturday Boy]

Douglas Ross doesn’t understand the offside law.

This is just another Tory move to remove Scotland’s Legal system.

[Future17]

As a juror, if I believed that someone was guilty but there was reasonable doubt due to weak proof, it would really piss me off to say that they were not guilty.

Would it piss you off to answer the questions you've been asked on the thread you started about the Covid conspiracy?!? :greengrin

[Keith_M]

When it comes to choosing TV commentators for Scottish Football, I'm definitely in the 'Not Provan' camp.

[Future17]

When it comes to choosing TV commentators for Scottish Football, I'm definitely in the 'Not Provan' camp.

At last, something we can surely all agree on! :greengrin

[Peevemor]

Would it piss you off to answer the questions you've been asked on the thread you started about the Covid conspiracy?!? :greengrin

I'll get there - I'm busy on other stuff. :greengrin