danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The jury hands it out, and you're not allowed to ask them why.
Amanda Knox Is Innocent
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It's cos they think you did it but can't prove that you didn't from the evidence.
It's a judgement of the level of proof, surely? It's an intermediate verdict... Sorry, don't know fa about Scottish law though.
But it must indicate that "Not Guilty" was not a satisfactory verdict for the jury... - sounds like "we think you done it but it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt" or something. ie innocent
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
We all know what the 'Not proven' verdict means and how it's come to be used by a jury. And whilst it doesn't mean 'Guilty' it certainly doesn't infer innocence. No-one wins with this verdict neither the accused nor the victim/victims family.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You may infer that.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The system should be changed to two possible verdicts. I'm not disputing that, in fact I said so in my initial post on the subject.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
me, and everyone else in the world.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
All you need is love
I wonder what Berlusconi's got to say about it all. He's bound to twist it to his advantage somehow.
Maybe the "Italian legal system is a joke" thing is gonna be helpful to him
Maybe the "Italian legal system is a joke" thing is gonna be helpful to him
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Yes, but despite all your protestations you know exactly what the jury means when they reach a 'Not proven' and so does the general public.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
That may be so, which is why the system should revert to two verdicts. However, it remains the case that it is an acquittal verdict, and is a judgement on the prosecution case. As indeed is the purpose of a trial. The accused is assumed innocent. The strength of the case is tested. The jury has two acquittal verdicts open to them (for historic reasons, to do with the Earl of Strathmore murder case) . The judge does not direct the jury to use not proven "if they think the defendant did it". You are right that people infer this, but that isn't what it means.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
that is exactly what it indicates. And the jury given the case before them should make the call on 'guilty' or not guilty'. The middle ground of 'not proven' is a cunts trick. I'd agree with danny that 'proven' or 'not proven' are better terms since the guilt or innocence is not what the jury is considering, rather they are considering the case put forward by the prosecution. I mean Kenny Noye was certainly not 'innocent' in the fact that he did stab a copper 13 times, the case put forward that it was murder however, was not proven.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I think you misunderstand me. I know very well what people infer. I have a fair idea what the jury implies when they use it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an acquittal verdict, and that it exists as a residue of the very logical system which said a trial is testing whether the prosecution case is Proven or Not Proven. I think (as I said) we should return to that. But I know very well we won't.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Yes but do you want to bone her?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
No, because 'Not Proven' was originally the Scottish version of 'Not Guilrty'/. That has changed now as well you know. Consequently whilst historically it's not what it meant the changes in the legal system means therre is no reason for two 'simple' acquittal verdicts. Not proven is, as you know, by juries to deliver a much less than damning verdict on the prosecution and at the same time not be whpolly convinced of the innocence of the accused.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Given that those two verdicts exist, yes the honourable thing to do would be to use one or other of those. As I said, there should be two verdicts. I don't think it should be those two, but as I said from the beginning, I'm aware I'm in the minority here (mainly, these days, because of the influence of film and television, and the desire to pronounce on the accused rather than on the prosecution case).
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
I know it's an acquittal but it's not a 'Not Guilty' verdict, that's the whole point of the way it's used by juries nowadays.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, it wasn't, though. It had that effect. It meant acquittal. But the focus was different. It wasn't the accused at was Proven or Not Proven, but the prosecution case. So now we have three verdicts, one that applies to the prosecution case, and the other two to the accused. That is indeed illogical, and needs to change. If it ever does change, I think it'll be to drop the Not Proven verdict. I personally think that it should be Not Guilty that is dropped, since I think trials should be about your right to have the accusations made against you tested.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The way we infer that juries are using it, yes.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Read the exchange. It doesn't. But it is how it is viewed, by the public and probably by juries.
Fair enough. If I hadn't been so lazy I'd have realised this point has been made/discussed already.
I also agree with this, and feel it should be taken into all legal considerations.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
as the rest of my post says, I'd actually view the choice between 'proven' or 'not proven' as more accurate- after all a persons guilt or innocence is immaterial to the jury, it is can the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt that the charge brought is valid. But given the choice now rests with 'guilty' 'not guilty' or 'not proven', a not proven verdict is as damning as a guilty- minus the custodial implications. Imagine getting a not proven in your rape trial. Thats you branded as a beast for life.
I'd have thought that 'Not Proven' equates to 'Not Guilty' (theoretically, at least)? Although it obvs doesn't...
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Technically, the verdicts available to juries in Scots courts are in fact "Proven", "Not Proven" and "Not Guilty". It is "Not Guilty" that is the interloper, not "Not Proven". When juries and the press say "Guilty", as they do, they are not using a term that carries any weight. The judge will repeat that the case has been proven, not that the accused is guilty.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It has the same effect, but see above for discussion thereof.
Not proven is definitely a weird one. It has almost the exact same effect to the charged - no punishment - but there is a feeling of guilt implied with it. Whether there is meant to be or not. If they really believed you were innocent they'd go for not guilty.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
if it does in theory then it is utterly redundant, the case is proven or not. As it stands it means something quite different from the original intent and I can't see why scotland kept it except to cunt people off when the prosecution couldn't present a decent enough case but the jury still think the accused is shifty/fenian/black/etc and must have done it
Similar threads
