Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites   Post new thread Poll:
Author: Subject: Not proven
Underwater Plumber


Posts: 32767
Registered: 9-5-2004
Location: Scotia
Theme: Iconic
Member Is Offline

Mood: fact me

[*] Post 509449 posted on 24-9-2017 at 13:00 Reply With Quote
Not proven


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.


Scotland, unlike most of the world's legal systems, has three possible verdicts in criminal cases - guilty, not guilty and not proven
The legal implications of a not proven verdict are the same as with a not guilty verdict: the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law
Not proven is seen by some as offering additional protection to the accused
But critics argue that it is confusing for juries and the public, can stigmatise an accused person and fail to provide closure for victims
Scottish juries were historically able to return only proven or not proven verdicts
A third verdict of not guilty was introduced in the 1700s and became more commonly used than not proven
However, the option of returning a verdict of not proven was never removed
In more recent years, the general perception has been that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict

However there are moves afoot to retain Guilty/Not Proven and get rid of "Not Guilty". I'm uncomfortable with that.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
Anything you like


Posts: 7888
Registered: 23-7-2002
Theme: Coffee
Member Is Offline

Mood: Fintlewoodlewix.

[*] Post 509454 posted on 24-9-2017 at 19:56 Reply With Quote

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.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
Undercover MOD


Posts: 32767
Registered: 19-11-2004
Location: Riverton, South Australia
Theme: Windows XP Silver
Member Is Offline

Mood: Gone crazy, Back soo

[*] Post 509459 posted on 25-9-2017 at 00:55 Reply With Quote

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.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
Post new thread Poll:

Guest Notice
You are a guest, as a guest you can only see a maximum of 3 posts per thread.

If you want to see the rest, please click here to register.