not proven

[lb_of_Netherby]

Just curious--I saw a post that mentioned the Scottish court system has three verdicts: not guilty, not proven, and guilty. Could someone explain how "not proven" is used? Would it have the same legal consequences as "not guilty?" Thanks!

[heathen]

Not proven is a a conclusion of a trial when there is not enough evidence to support a conviction of guilt or innocence.
Not proven is exactly what it sounds.
You are not guilty or innocent, I dont know whether it can be used when a case collapses though.

Originally Scotland had two possible verdicts: Proven and Not Proven. At some point the English terms "guilty" and "not guilty" were introduced, but for some reason "not proven" was retained as a third possible verdict.

As stated, the verdict means that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the jury feels there are grounds to doubt the complete innocence of the accused. The legal consequences are exactly the same as for not guilty, i.e. the accused is released and cannot ever be retried for the same offence, but the accused's reputation can be badly damaged as there is always a suspicion hanging over him/her.

[Foxx]

I see the advantage for a jury to deliver such a verdict is that they don't really have to make a decision by voting "not proven" to the charges and the added advantage is that they block a re-trial, which would happen in the English jury system where only one vote against the majority opinion would result in a "hung jury" and a re-trial.

BTW, the President of the U.S. Senate recorded the vote of the U.S. Senator (Specter?) who cited Scottish Law of "Not Proven" at the Senate Impeachment trial of Clinton in 1999 as "Not Guilty" -- Thus saving the Senator the trouble of making up his mind.

[ANDY-J2]

The main advantage is that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.There is no doubt that many criminals walk free as a result of a not proven verdict but it is an added safeguard which helps ensure the accused has a fair trial.Further to Neil's points the verdicts of guilty or not guilty were introduced by Cromwell when he established English law in Scotland.Subsequently they were replaced by proven and not proven and then in the eighteenth century not guilty was reinstated as a verdict for some reason and at some later date proven was changed to guilty.

Not proven has been termed, by one legal expert, "that ******* verdict". I personally think it is more trouble than it is worth and is often used as a cop-out by juries.

I like the concept of "proven" and "not proven" in the sense of the prosecution having to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails the case is not proven and the accused is freed. Such freedom should be without stain on the accused's character which, unfortunately, the existing "not proven" verdict often bestows. The whole point of our various criminal justice systems is that the accuser has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove anything.

[Foxx]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
The whole point of our various criminal justice systems is that the accuser has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove anything.

Here! Here!

As a young man in the early 1970s serving on a remote base in Alaska and very bored due to the lack of female company and recreation limited snowy walks in blizzards, and under the influence various socialist philosophers, I decided that the United States needed a hard turn to the left and a new constitution that gave all citizens the right to a minimum income, socialized medicine, and free public education to the doctorate level.

I filled notebooks full of ideas of a "vanguard" party to lead this revolution and named, the "American National Party" (ANP) for short with the ultimate foreign policy goal of world domination. I even planned a new capital city somewhere on the vast farm plains of Kansas as the new capital many times more grander than the old republican capital in Washington, D.C. which would be named something like "Americana."

This new empire -- like the Romans -- would not be racist or sexist, but would recruit talent from any subject nation. This new elite would be voted into office for limited terms by a body of electors limited to only those who had served in the military (An idea adopted from science fiction writer Robert Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS), a military service that was opened to all citizens regardless of physical and/or mental disabilities, but only those who served in active military operations branches(infantry, armor, artillery, Special Foreces,etc.) could stand for office.

Law enforcement in this new empire would be brutal and very public and enforced by "New Centurians" who would ruthlessly crush criminals and rebels, and even publicly flog offenders at the Shopping Malls on Saturday morning for even petty crimes like shoplifting. For more serious offenses, prisons would be located in places like the Aleutian Islands, and a special horror would be felt when someone would say about another person, "The Centurians arrested Joe last night for car thief and after a his 15 minute trial sentenced him to 20 years of hard labor on the island of Shemya: I bet he won't survive a year in that icebox!"

Of course, the vast majority would be wealthy, fat, dumb and more or less happy who would be grateful to the ex-military that they were no longer had to show up at the polls, run for office or serve on juries. The minority -- mostly intellectuals and rebels who would dream endlessly about the "good old days under the Republic" in political prisons located in Northern Canada would be unhappy in any society short of utopia anyway.

Anyhow, our commanding officer at this remote base in the icy northland, a "Full Bird" Colonel had an "Open Door" policy on Friday morning where any rank could discuss any matter without an appointment or the chain of command knowing anything about the meeting. The morning in question, I dressed myself in my best uniform and knocked at his door, reported to him, and stated the nature of my request, which was that he read my 200 page outline for a "New America" -- and I stated that his opinion meant much to me because he was a graduate of West Point and Command&Staff school, and a decorated combat officer with the Silver Star. He agreed to do so and get back to me.

I didn't have to wait long -- early Monday morning -- like about 5 a.m. I was personally awakened by the Sergeant Major and told to report to the Colonel as soon as possible. When I did so, it was clear that he was not a happy camper and gave me a dressing down that included a denial of my request for OCS, and he ended the interview by saying that "You have dangerous ideas that if put in action could lead to the overthrow the government and the creation of a fascist state" and that my it was my plan, "to involve him and other serving officers of the United States in a right wing conspiracy" and that the best course for me was to burn the damn notebook" (which he returned to me full of corrections made in red ink with comments all over the margins like a college professor grading a research paper from a dense, failing student who just doesn't get what the class is all about) and to "forget about politics while on active duty."

I burned my notebook that very morning and addressed myself to my military career (The OCS application was approved by a new C.O. about six months later, so my military career stayed more or less on track) and received good fitness reports. Later I addressed the political issue again in studies where I discovered the philosophy that forms the foundation of the political structure of both Britain and America, which ideas of socialism are late, unwelcome additions.

Thus by 1980, I totally rejected all notions of socialism in any variety -- national (fascist), international (communist and socialist), democratic, Fabian, etc -- which in extreme forms are a clear and present danger to liberty.

My old Colonel (who has since died) was right. Churchill was also right when he said, "A young man who isn't a socialist by the time he's 20 has no heart. A man who is still a socialist by the he's 40 has no head."

[Edited by Foxx on 3rd August 2004 at 12:34]