Scotland set to abolish Not Proven verdict.

Capt Lightning

Capt Lightning

Well-known Member
Location
Historic Buchan, Scotland
Since the 17th. century, Scots law sic has had three possible verdicts at a trial - Guilty, Not guilty, and Not Proven. Although Not proven has the same effect as Not guilty, it basically suggests that rather than being innocent, there is insufficient proof of a guilty verdict. This third outcome is now set to be abolished and Scots law will fall in line with the rest of the UK.
 

If there isn't enough proof why were they charged in the first place. This also taints future juries and/or judges.

I get the expression 'What you know and what you can proove are two different things' But this seems away to label someone with a scarlett letter. But it's is thankfully no more.
 

:D

I do think some people get worked up over much of nothing.

Scotland hasn't fallen into the ocean because of the "Not Proven" verdict, and I'd be interested to know how it is improved by not having it. After all, as the OP states, it's been in place since the 17th century. It's hardly been a disaster.

There can be lots of outcomes of trials: Guilty, Not Guilty, Hung Jury, a Plea Deal (which can happen mid-trial), etc. In the UK if a jury finds something "not proven", then they must go with Not Guilty. It's not exactly a huge difference.

This new change is coming into place because it is suspected there will be more guilty verdicts. Personally, I think it's for law enforcement and lawyers to get a good case together, and either prove innocence or not.

People do like to get righteous about minutia at times. :D
 
I think it's a good thing that they're ending it. It left a stigma hanging over one's head, as though the judge had said, "I think you're guilty, but there just isn't enough evidence to prove it."

I wish America would come to an agreement to end the death penalty, rather than have this variation from state-to state.

At this point in time, I'm feeling so much sorrow for the father of the recent assassin. How hard it must have been to turn in his own child, and so much harder knowing he may get the death penalty.
 
Della said:
I wish America would come to an agreement to end the death penalty, rather than have this variation from state-to state.
Click to expand...
That would be hard to do. One of the reasons we have states and limits on Federal power is that the founders recognized that different groups have different ideas of what is right and wrong, how to deal with certain situations and so on. The last thing the founders wanted in the USA is an all powerful Federal government and a new king. Whatever one’s political persuasions, at some point or another most Americans will be shouting “State’s Rights!!” depending upon who is running the Federal government. See the 10th amendment. It’s the forgotten amendment, until the Feds do something you really don’t like.

Tenth Amendment​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
:D

This new change is coming into place because it is suspected there will be more guilty verdicts. Personally, I think it's for law enforcement and lawyers to get a good case together, and either prove innocence or not.
:D
Click to expand...
In the US, a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof of guilt is on the government, for each element of the crime(s) charged.
 
hollydolly said:
Precisely that... you have it in a nutshell....
Click to expand...
I believe one can probably be charged due to what appears to be suspicion of guilt. However, in a court of law, it must be proven for a guilty verdict. So, it's really the jury who decides the not proven verdict. If the government has failed in the jury's consensus to have proven guilt in each element of the crime, the people then have an out with that not proven outcome. Not a good system at all. Good that Scotland is abolishing it. Juries may not like that though.
 
In the United States, if a jury believes a particular law is unjust or does not apply in a case, the jury can acquit a defendant, even if they believe he broke the law by issuing a nullification verdict. A nullification verdict cannot be used to overturn or retry the defendant.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
In the United States, if a jury believes a particular law is unjust or does not apply in a case, the jury can acquit a defendant, even if they believe he broke the law by issuing a nullification verdict. A nullification verdict cannot be used to overturn or retry the defendant.
Click to expand...
After a jury is impaneled in this country, the jurors must swear an oath to follow the law as given forth by the judge at the end of the trial. If a juror refuses to take that oath, he is immediately dismissed and sometimes held in contempt. I saw this happen in one case as I was waiting for my dad to finish his case in another courtroom. Judges do not look kindly on the public defining the law as they see fit.
 
Lewkat said:
Judges do not look kindly on the public defining the law as they see fit.
Click to expand...
When I was on jury duty, a member raised her hand with a question for the judge. "Can I use my gut instinct to make my decisions, or must I use the facts of the case only?" she asked.
The judge told her, "I can't tell you what to base your decisions on."
She proceeded over time to make some of the wildest leaps of logic I have ever seen, deliberately supporting one side and demonizing the other.
 
Lewkat said:
After a jury is impaneled in this country, the jurors must swear an oath to follow the law as given forth by the judge at the end of the trial. If a juror refuses to take that oath, he is immediately dismissed and sometimes held in contempt. I saw this happen in one case as I was waiting for my dad to finish his case in another courtroom. Judges do not look kindly on the public defining the law as they see fit.
Click to expand...
Indeed judges do not look kindly on it, but it's a legal maneuver that a jury can exercise, over which the judge has no control.

A brief explanation:
A "perverse verdict" is synonymous with "jury nullification," where a jury disregards the law and acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty, often because they deem the law itself unjust or applied unfairly in a specific case, leading to a verdict contrary to the evidence presented. These verdicts are possible because jurors cannot be punished for their decisions, but they are controversial, as judges are not required to inform juries of their power to nullify the law."

Note, it says "judges are not required to inform juries of their power to nullify the law."

Nevertheless, juries have the authority and sometimes use it.

More information from the U.S. Department of Justice
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top