Wee-Bey Posted Wednesday at 09:45 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:45 I always took Not Proven to mean that the prosecution were unable to prove guilt and the defence were unable to prove that they didn't do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 09:46 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:46 Just now, Wee-Bey said: I always took Not Proven to mean that the prosecution were unable to prove guilt and the defence were unable to prove that they didn't do it. I didn't think the defence were ever under any such obligation though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted Wednesday at 09:51 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:51 The "b*****d" verdict is actually "not guilty", which was imported from the English legal system. Originally, as pointed out above, Scottish juries could find a case "proven" or "not proven". Not Proven is an acquittal, no matter what people try to read into it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted Wednesday at 09:58 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:58 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Thanks. What is the distinction then, and why does it exist? I know that it might not forever. It's on the way out, something going through parliament right now IIRC 17 minutes ago, Wee-Bey said: I always took Not Proven to mean that the prosecution were unable to prove guilt and the defence were unable to prove that they didn't do it. No defence team is ever under any obligation to prove anything. Defendants are considered innocent right up until such point a jury says otherwise. It's up to a prosecution to prove a case, not up to a defence to prove innocence, although obviously poking holes in a prosecution is is commonly a big part of what a defence team end up doing anyway. 11 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: The "b*****d" verdict is actually "not guilty", which was imported from the English legal system. Originally, as pointed out above, Scottish juries could find a case "proven" or "not proven". Not Proven is an acquittal, no matter what people try to read into it. I thought this for years as well, but it actually turns out it's not the case. "Not Guilty" verdicts have been showing up in records of Scots trials that predate the union of the crowns and the Act of union. I'm not quite sure of precisely why there is this discrepancy and i'm sure it's no doubt rooted in Scots Law, but I read an article not long back discussing this notion that "not guilty" is the interloper, and it comprehensively showed that is actually a myth. I'll see if I can find it... Here it is - https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/blog-no-not-proven-did-not-come-first Edited Wednesday at 10:03 by Boo Khaki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Wednesday at 09:58 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:58 10 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: The "b*****d" verdict is actually "not guilty", which was imported from the English legal system. Originally, as pointed out above, Scottish juries could find a case "proven" or "not proven". Not Proven is an acquittal, no matter what people try to read into it. In academic misconduct cases we have two outcomes: Proven and Not Proven. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 10:06 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:06 13 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Not Proven is an acquittal, no matter what people try to read into it. I accept that. What is the distinction though? Why might a jury find someone 'not guilty' of certain charges, but reach a 'not proven' verdict for another? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Wednesday at 10:07 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:07 On Salmond, what is interesting is that he was found Not Guilty on 12 counts and Not Proven on one. Whilst all are acquittals, it suggests that the jury viewed one case differently from the others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted Wednesday at 10:09 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:09 2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I accept that. What is the distinction though? Why might a jury find someone 'not guilty' of certain charges, but reach a 'not proven' verdict for another? Ripped straight from Wikipedia... "in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but The Crown has not provided sufficient evidence" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted Wednesday at 10:10 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:10 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: I accept that. What is the distinction though? Why might a jury find someone 'not guilty' of certain charges, but reach a 'not proven' verdict for another? Ok, read the article I linked. If you CBA, the jist of it is that around the time of the Restoration the role of the jury was changed from declaring "guilty or not guilty" to simply returning a verdict of "proven", or "not proven" to each of the prosecution charges, and then the judge would pronounce Guilt or otherwise depending on the jury verdict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted Wednesday at 10:11 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:11 15 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I didn't think the defence were ever under any such obligation though. 3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: No defence team is ever under any obligation to prove anything. Defendants are considered innocent right up until such point a jury says otherwise. It's up to a prosecution to prove a case, not up to a defence to prove innocence, although obviously poking holes in a prosecution is is commonly a big part of what a defence team end up doing anyway. Yeah I agree and accept thie premise that the defence is not obligated to prove anything. Not Proven is also an acquittal, but is clearly not the same as Not Guilty. I just don't think 'he probably did it but we can't prove it' is a satisfying explanation for the not proven option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted Wednesday at 10:20 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:20 34 minutes ago, kennie makevin said: If you're not claiming every English person thinks in exactly the same way then don't use nonsense phrases like 'The English viewpoint'. If I consider those views the majority view of people in England I don't think it's unfair to call it the English viewpoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted Wednesday at 10:24 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:24 14 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Why might a jury find someone 'not guilty' of certain charges, but reach a 'not proven' verdict for another? As Scots jurors are specifically forbidden from commenting on their reasons for their findings, we will never know. Legally, all that matters is that Salmond was acquitted of all charges in this specific case, no matter what commentators try to imply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted Wednesday at 10:28 Share Posted Wednesday at 10:28 19 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I accept that. What is the distinction though? Why might a jury find someone 'not guilty' of certain charges, but reach a 'not proven' verdict for another? 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the break point. Not guilty, or guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. Or, there is a reasonable doubt you are guilty = not proven. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted Wednesday at 11:06 Share Posted Wednesday at 11:06 My view - innocent but sleazy, just another alpha male who felt he had the right to try it on with women in one on one situations. It saddens me that I now lump him alongside Clinton, Johnson etc... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eez-eh Posted Wednesday at 12:19 Share Posted Wednesday at 12:19 2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: Ok, read the article I linked. If you CBA, the jist of it is that around the time of the Restoration the role of the jury was changed from declaring "guilty or not guilty" to simply returning a verdict of "proven", or "not proven" to each of the prosecution charges, and then the judge would pronounce Guilt or otherwise depending on the jury verdict. That doesn’t explain what the present day distinction between “not proven” and “not guilty” is. I know there is supposed to be no difference, so we could discuss this all week and not get any further. But for a jury to return both of the verdicts they must have saw some difference between them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 12:21 Share Posted Wednesday at 12:21 1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said: As Scots jurors are specifically forbidden from commenting on their reasons for their findings, we will never know. Legally, all that matters is that Salmond was acquitted of all charges in this specific case, no matter what commentators try to imply. Ok, despite you're earlier posturing, you're unable or unwilling to discuss how the verdicts differ, lest you compromise your 'Eck is entirely innocent' schtick. Bit daft, but here we are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted Wednesday at 12:23 Share Posted Wednesday at 12:23 paging @tamthebam to the Alex Salmond thread.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 12:25 Share Posted Wednesday at 12:25 2 minutes ago, eez-eh said: That doesn’t explain what the present day distinction between “not proven” and “not guilty” is. I know there is supposed to be no difference, so we could discuss this all week and not get any further. But for a jury to return both of the verdicts they must have saw some difference between them. Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. Obviously, in Salmond's specific case, we can't know exactly what motivated the reaching of different verdicts. I am a bit intrigued by it though. Nobody seems able to say why such a thing might have happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted Wednesday at 12:27 Share Posted Wednesday at 12:27 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: Ok, despite you're earlier posturing, you're unable or unwilling to discuss how the verdicts differ, lest you compromise your 'Eck is entirely innocent' schtick. Bit daft, but here we are. I don't believe that the verdicts do differ. It would make no difference to me whether every verdict was not guilty, not proven or a mixture of both. Salmond was acquitted on all charges. That's a fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted Wednesday at 12:28 Share Posted Wednesday at 12:28 (edited) 9 minutes ago, eez-eh said: That doesn’t explain what the present day distinction between “not proven” and “not guilty” is. I know there is supposed to be no difference, so we could discuss this all week and not get any further. But for a jury to return both of the verdicts they must have saw some difference between them. I think it's just rooted in jury perception of what they mean, rather than there actually being any difference. As I said, "not proven" pertains to the prosecution case, so in jurors minds I think that would be tempting in the scenario whereby the opinion is "sorry, but you haven't convinced us the defendant is guilty", whereas "not guilty" pertains to the defendant directly, and I think that would apply where the jury is of a mind "the defendant absolutely did not do what is alleged". It's a subtle distinction, but I don't think the former actually translates into "we think you did it but it can't be proven" either, which is the common interpretation. I think it's not anything beyond "the prosecution hasn't convinced" regardless of what the general perception of a "not proven" verdict might be. Edited Wednesday at 12:29 by Boo Khaki 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.