In Scotland as well as Guilty/Not Guilty verdicts there remains the option of Not Proven which is used when the jury presumes guilt but can't find enough current evidence to support the guilt verdict.
Seems odd. Even if someone is found to be innocent, I presume a case can be retried if some compelling new evidence is turned up.
The thing that strikes me, is that if someone is merely found to have had an offence "not proven", there's likely to be a stigma, as they haven't been found innocent (As you quoted). It could be taken as everyone actually thinking they're guilty, it's just a mere technicality that they never found enough evidence.
Stinks like rotting cow poo.
I like the concept. If the case is "not proven", I would hope that there is legislation in place to allow a re-trial. Of course, there would be a stigma attached to such a verdict. I would, therefore, consider such an option as only appropriate for particularly heinous cases.
Maybe the legal industry have found a way to make even more money.
It sure smacks of that, to me.
Not Guilty, in the U.S., means Not Proven Guilty--it certainly doesn't mean Innocent, only that the state did not prove guilt sufficiently to convince the deciding authority, whether jury or judge.
Therein lies the problem with double jeopardy rules. If the prosecutors do not do their job properly, a person, who may well be guilty as sin, may be found "Not Guilty", and, effectively, gets away with the crime. An innocent person who is found "Not Guilty" has the stigma of, "Perhaps the prosecutor did not do his job properly". At least with a "Not Proven" verdict, the stigma attached to the "Not Guilty" verdict is minimised.