dodd Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Anyone else agree that the "Not Proven" verdict is a cop out and has no place in any decent legal system?"Burns" called it "That Bas-tard Verdict", several hundred years ago and nothing has changed since. Surely in 21at century Scotland we can make up our minds whether someone has been proven guilty or not? Anything else is a disservice to everyone concerned. It doesn't mean they are guilty but it doesn't mean they are innocent either. Despite what the press and the one concerned might say after.Surely we are better than that? 15 men and women presented with the facts should at least have the decency to make some decision rather than none. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Anyone else agree that the "Not Proven" verdict is a cop out and has no place in any decent legal system?...Thoughts?I have generally considered the "Not proven" verdict to be one of the more impressive and sophisticated aspects of the Scottish legal system. It is all about burden of proof. In situations where the level has not been reached it is not possible to reach a guilty verdict. This does not, however, mean that anyone necessarily believes that the accused is innocent. Rather than be forced to state legally that "because we can not be sure the accused is guilty, they are innocent" it is surely far better to just state that it is not proven. Take O.J. for example. He was found "Not guilty" but in Scotland I'm sure it would either have been "Not proven" or (I'd like to believe) "Guilty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodd Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Yes, that is fine until the once accused person is presented by the media as having been cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 That Bas-tard Verdict Indeed In a certain case that springs to mind Everybody knows it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Yes, that is fine until the once accused person is presented by the media as having been cleared. Yes I agree, but that is surely much more likely to happen if they have a verdict of "Not guilty" than "Not proven." People can spin it how they wish but a verdict of "Not proven" is nothing to be proud about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I understood it to be that Not Proven means. Not Proven. To me that suggests that the person has not been found innocent. And just not found guilty on say a technicality or some other thing in the prosecutions case But it is a nice way for legal beagles to make lots of money at everyone’s expense A quote Fits here very well“There may not be enough work for one lawyer in the town but plenty of work for two†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Whilst I totally understand the reasoning behind the jury having "not proven" as a verdict option, the fact such a decision means the closure of a case defies all logic. Surely any case coming to a not proven verdict should automatically result in a re-examination of the case leading to a re-trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moorit Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Because the "not proven" verdict carries with it an implication of guilt but no formal conviction, the defendant is legally innocent but often seen as morally guilty without the option of a retrial to clear their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboy1 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Well I for 1 stand in complete disgust with our legal system the whole case was a sham from the beginning! Half the actual witnesses and personell whom attended were infact never called as witnesses yet someone who was not their and received a text message from a member of his family was ? The inaccuracies of the evidence given or what was reported was shocking the lady in question was never at any point held down, she was comforted and was being cuddled on the grass but never held down. The house doors were locked that I can say 100%, is locking the doors from inside of a house that your in a rational move the move I would be opening the door to try get smoke out not locking myself in ? maintaining a route of exit is a priority. 3 out of the 1st 6 persons on scene were never even cited as witnesses yet someone who came wandering out in their dressing gown for a look over their fence was having never been near the house. And as for trying to say his young wife should be looked at well I can guarantee she was trying everything she could to get into her locked home locked by him by his own admission. The not proven verdict shows what a ridiculious joke our court system is yet again and as for the media attention he is getting, all I can say is they should hang their heads in shame and I only hope it comes back to bight them in the ass, and justice is done for the 8mth old baby that lost her life. I think a petition should be raised to have the case re examined someone started the fires that killed an innocent child & someone should pay for that act! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 what would you prefer just guilty or not guilty. 15 people could not bring a guilty verdict so he would have walked anyway. with the not proven it means they had strong doubts about his innocence but not enough to convict. the system is not wrong but the presentation of the case may have been. still a child died and that is a fact. even if they were all innocent they were all drinking. i thought being in charge of children while drunk was a crime. giving drink to young teenagers is also against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Just a small note that this discussion is about the use an implications of the "not proven" verdict, not about any particular case. As so rightly stated above, the verdict does nothing for either party, accused, defendant or those involved in the case. There are unquestionably cases where the decision is correct, however the fact it is the "final word" is, in my opinion, wrong. Can a case be re-opened following such a decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Whatever happened to to 'innocent until proven guilty'? That's rather what 'not proven' relies on. I'm not familiar enough with the case to make any kind of judgement (nor are most people in this thread, I respectfully suspect). Please respect Shetlink's T&Cs, keep the tone civil, the discussion objective and the information relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I had a look at the Wikipedia article on "Not Proven" and found it very informative. I had no idea about how the verdict originated until reading it. "Burns" called it "That Bas-tard Verdict",Wikipedia says that it was coined by Sir Walter Scott. ... the fact such a decision means the closure of a case defies all logic.The Wikipedia article states that:A person receiving a not proven verdict ... is not subject to double jeopardy.That surely means that it cannot be easily reopened, which seems less-than-good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Whatever happened to to 'innocent until proven guilty'? That's rather what 'not proven' relies on. I think thats where the terminology is at fault. "Not proven" implies "we think the defendant is guilty, but we couldn't prove it", as opposed to; "there is insufficent evident to prove the defendants guilt, therefore they are innocent" "Insufficent evidence" or similar seems more logical. ... the fact such a decision means the closure of a case defies all logic.The Wikipedia article states that:A person receiving a not proven verdict ... is not subject to double jeopardy.That surely means that it cannot be easily reopened, which seems less-than-good. I agree. Surely in a not proven case, should more evidence come to light it would almost seem a requirement to re-examine everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penfold Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Thats how I take the not proven verdict to mean, there is not enough evidence to meet the burden of proof of the charges in question and the defendant may be re-tried for the crime if new evidence comes to light in relation to the original charges. The person has clearly not been "cleared" of the charges against them, the charges brought against them were "not proven" and as such may be revisted. Had the defendant been found "not guilty" of the charges then they could not be re-tried on them as they could lodge a defence of double jeopardy? The headlines of some the reports on the case are poor and may lead folk to believe that he has been cleared. this from wikipedia In modern use, the not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a not guilty verdict. This perception is reflected in the popular paraphrase of "not proven" as meaning "not guilty, but don't do it again". A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to double jeopardy. The real effect of a not proven verdict is stigma for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person's reputation, as when socialite Madeleine Smith was charged with murder in nineteenth century Glasgow but acquitted with a not proven verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts