Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[danny la rouge]

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.

In fact the choice is Proven, Not Proven, and Not Guilty. I'd want a Not Guilty (as I said above) as long as it is available, but only because it is viewed as a more ringing endorsement of my good character. Which is why it should go.

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

Indeed. Which is why there should only be two verdicts. As I said all along.

 

[Fedayn]

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 Guilty and Not Guilty that are dropped, since I think trials should be about your right to have the accusations made against you tested.

It was in the way it meant acquittal. Guilt is eiterh proven or not proven, the former means they committed the croime ie guilty the latter meaning they didn't do it ie not guilty.

I agree re that dropping of guilty/not guilty.

 

[twentythreedom]

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.

Yeah. I can't imagine how the victims / their families must feel when a "Not Proven" verdict is delivered in a murder / rape / assault etc (anything, in fact) trial.

Going back on topic, sort of, imagine if such a verdict had actually been delivered in the Kercher case.... (which is pretty much what happened)

 

[strung out]

Indeed. Which is why there should only be two verdicts. As I said all along.

say it again danny

 

[Pickman's model]

no one would be going on about this if amanda knox hadn't had the 'foxy knoxy' reputation built around her.

 

[twentythreedom]

if it does in theory then it is utterly redundant, the case is proven or not.

yeah, that^^

 

[danny la rouge]

It was in the way it meant acquittal. Guilt is eiterh proven or not proven, the former means they committed the croime ie guilty the latter meaning they didn't do it ie not guilty.

I agree re that dropping of guilty/not guilty.

It may be a nice distinction to make, but I think it's an important one: my point is that we aren't testing the accused in a trial, we are testing the strength of the accusations laid against him/her. "Guilty" is not a verdict that is open to Scottish juries (thought they may think it is). They can find a case Proven or Not Proven, or they can find the accused Not Guilty. As long as three verdicts exist, people will indeed assume that one of them means "you are acquitted but don't do it again". It doesn't, but they will think that. So one should go. It should be "Not Guilty".

 

[DrRingDing]

no one would be going on about this if amanda knox hadn't had the 'foxy knoxy' reputation built around her.

It's helps Meredith would of got it too.

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, I think we've all had enough of the sidetrack now, so if you'll excuse me, I'll let the matter rest.

 

[twentythreedom]

no one would be going on about this if amanda knox hadn't had the 'foxy knoxy' reputation built around her.

totally. Like I said before, currently about 95% of media is about her, 5% all the rest....

Broken...... Europe

 

[Fedayn]

It may be a nice distinction to make, but I think it's an important one: my point is that we aren't testing the accused in a trial, we are testing the strength of the accusations laid against him/her. "Guilty" is not a verdict that is open to Scottish juries (thought they may think it is). They can find a case Proven or Not Proven, or they can find the accused Not Guilty. As long as three verdicts exist, people will indeed assume that one of them means "you are acquitted but don't do it again". It doesn't, but they will think that. So one should go. It should be "Not Guilty".

But you're still livng pre the changes, because we both know exactly what it means now. The meaning of Not proven has changed in the eyes of jurors and the general public. That people may still believe it remains as it was 500 years ago is neither here nor there, it has changed completely in the eyes of the public, jurors, legal system etc.

 

[DotCommunist]

The question we all need to ask ourselves is 'If I had knox staying at my house would I share the joint with her and would I leave the knives in the easily accessible knife block?'

 

[DotCommunist]

It's helps Meredith would of got it too.

said Sollieceto to Gueda

 

[strung out]

i think someone needs to explain the difference between not proven, not guilty and guilty again

 

[where to]

i still don't know what to think about all this, so much froth around this case ever since its beginnings that its hard to get to the facts of the matter.

it will be interesting to see if they really pursue extradition once she is back in Seattle or if, over time, things are dropped.

 

[danny la rouge]

But you're still livng pre the changes, because we both know exactly what it means now. The meaning of Not proven has changed in the eyes of jurors and the general public. That people may still believe it remains as it was 500 years ago is neither here nor there, it has changed completely in the eyes of the public, jurors, legal system etc.

OK, but this is my last reply on the subject.

Yes, we all know how the Not Proven verdict is understood by the public and jurors (as members of the public). I am not living 500 years ago. I know how it is seen. All I'm saying is that in law it does not in fact mean what people think it does. When I say that it isn't because I'm blind to how it is seen. It actually doesn't mean "we think you did it". The three verdicts you are told by the judge you have are Proven, Not Proven and Not Guilty. I understand fully that people will think they have Guilty and Not Guilty available, but they don't. They only have one of those. I know that they think Not Proven is "we think you did it", but it doesn't. Judges do not direct juries to use it that way, and in Law it is not intended that way. That juries think it means that is of course true. That the press will interpret it that way is also true. But that is not its actual meaning.

 

[Fedayn]

OK, but this is my last reply on the subject.

Yes, we all know how the Not Proven verdict is understood by the public and jurors (as members of the public). I am not living 500 years ago. I know how it is seen. All I'm saying is that in law it does not in fact mean what people think it does. When I say that it isn't because I'm blind to how it is seen. It actually doesn't mean "we think you did it". The three verdicts you are told by the judge you have are Proven, Not Proven and Not Guilty. I understand fully that people will think they have Guilty and Not Guilty available, but they don't. They only have one of those. I know that they think Not Proven is "we think you did it", but it doesn't. Judges do not direct juries to use it that way, and in Law it is not intended that way. That juries think it means that is of course true. That the press will interpret it that way is also true. But that is not its actual meaning.

Historically I agree it's not what it meant, it's not what it means in the legal statutes, but that is irrelevant in terms of how society sees it.

 

[danny la rouge]

Historically I agree it's not what it meant, it's not what it means in the legal statutes, but that is irrelevant in terms of how society sees it.

I'm not disagreeing. People's idea of what it means is at variance to its legal meaning. Yes, exactly. I've said that from the start. In fact, I think my opening remark was something to that effect.

The effect on a person who has been acquitted on a Not Proven verdict is that they have a cloud of suspicion still hanging above them. Absolutely. And that's wrong. I have said from my very first post on the matter that the current 3 verdict system is unsatisfactory, and should change. And it should change because of public perception of what a Not Proven verdict means.

I'm actually at a loss to know why this exchange has carried on so long.

 

[strung out]

not proven just means they think you're guilty but they can't prove it

 

[danny la rouge]

So now we have three verdicts, one that applies to the prosecution case, and the other two to the accused.

Due to a clerical error, I put my numbers in the wrong place. It should be the other way round - two apply to the prosecution case and one to the accused. I won't edit, because the post has been quoted. But I think it can be seen from the rest of my posts that I intended to say the opposite of what appears here.

 

[DotCommunist]

not proven just means they think you're guilty but they can't prove it

But that is not how the legal term originally came about

 

[danny la rouge]

 

[strung out]

But that is not how the legal term originally came about

explain it to me again please

 

[strung out]

sorry, serious thread. i'll shut up now.

 

[Fedayn]

I'm not disagreeing. People's idea of what it means is at variance to its legal meaning. Yes, exactly. I've said that from the start. In fact, I think my opening remark was something to that effect.

The effect on a person who has been acquitted on a Not Proven verdict is that they have a cloud of suspicion still hanging above them. Absolutely. And that's wrong. I have said from my very first post on the matter that the current 3 verdict system is unsatisfactory, and should change. And it should change because of public perception of what a Not Proven verdict means.

I'm actually at a loss to know why this exchange has carried on so long.

Because I don't think the legal meaning has any weight any more, that's the point i'm making. Ie the legal establishment can say all they want, no-one believes it means what it once did. It is quite literally a useless verdict in every way because of how it 9is used, NOT, because of what it originally and legalistically speaking means.

 

[twentythreedom]

I'm not disagreeing. People's idea of what it means is at variance to its legal meaning.

That's reason to do away with it then.

Anyway, is she on the private jet yet?

 

[danny la rouge]

@ Fed. And so the system should be amended to a two verdict system. I refer the honourable gentleman to my initial post on the matter.

 

[Fedayn]

@ Fed. And so the system should be amended to a two verdict system..

I concur wholeheartedly.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's reason to do away with it then.

ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH