# Not Guilty vs Not Proven **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693 "2015-01-23T18:04:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/1 "2015-01-23T18:04:26Z")
Fortunately not having much experience with the court system, and also not fully understand what Jury Nullification actually is, I put forth: From what I recently heard our (US) system of Guilty vs Not Guilty derived from a system in Scotland which the jury rulings were Proven vs Not Proven. A case came up where instead of the Proven or Not Proven decision the Jury decided to give a ruling of Not Guilty. How it was explained was that the jury wanted to make it clear that no matter if it was proven or not there was nothing done that was considered ‘wrong’ to do, so no guilt in the action. If the above is true or not, I want to discuss the concept. If the jury decision is a decision of guilt (vs proven), would it not have to include proving that the defendant actually did something morally or accepted as wrong? As I understand it if a prosecutor can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did violate the written law that is what is usually take as what is meant by a ‘guilty’ verdict, however it appears really only to be ‘proven’ that he did it, as opposed to ‘guilty’’ that he did something ‘bad’ (in doing it). First is this the basis of juror nullification? Secondly if a juror is asked to find someone guilty vs not guilty (as opposed to proven vs non-proven), would it not be incumbent of the juror to decide if there is guilt in the action to be had as well as if he committed the act? And finally is it normally the procedure for the prosecutor to both try to prove the act was committed and that the act was ‘wrong’ to commit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/2 "2015-01-23T19:43:50Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > … is it normally the procedure for the prosecutor to both try to prove the act was committed and that the act was ‘wrong’ to commit. Not exactly. The prosecutor will generally try to show that the act had unpleasant consequences for the victim. However, generally whether a criminal act was “wrong” only comes up as an affirmative defense. One category of such defenses is _justifications_ like _necessity_ (say, the accused had to break into a house because he was lost in the wilderness and in imminent danger of freezing to death.) Under those circumstances, the accused would say “yes, I did it, but you shouldn’t convict me because I had no choice.” Similarly, if the accused raises an insanity defense, the prosecutor would have to show that the accused was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct (though the required showing depends on the jurisdiction.) The court is generally not going to allow argument about whether the underlying crime should be a crime unless there is a constitutional argument raised, and that would not be a jury issue (that is, it would be argued to the judge.) The prosecutor won’t be bringing in locals to testify how awful mopery is and how mopery destroys the community. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/3 "2015-01-23T20:05:01Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > First is this the basis of juror nullification? Do you mean _jury_ nullification? If so, no. The basis of the supremacy of the jury was formally established after the antics of one William Penn, assisted by Messrs Starling, Bushel et al, and Howell in 1670. See _Jury vs Bench, The Law’s Strangest Cases p20-23_. Basically the jury refused to convict and the bench threw them in jail. As Chief Justice Vaughan pronounced, ‘A jury must be independently and inscrutably responsible for its verdict free from any threat from the court.’ ---
**Author:** ![lucid-nonsense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/2acd7d/32.png) [@lucid-nonsense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucid-nonsense)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/4 "2015-01-23T20:43:32Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Do you mean _jury_ nullification? If so, no. The basis of the supremacy of the jury was formally established after the antics of one William Penn, assisted by Messrs Starling, Bushel et al, and Howell in 1670. See _Jury vs Bench, The Law’s Strangest Cases p20-23_. Basically the jury refused to convict and the bench threw them in jail. As Chief Justice Vaughan pronounced, ‘A jury must be independently and inscrutably responsible for its verdict free from any threat from the court.’ Quick semi-related question: I understand jury nullification is more a _de facto_ then _de jure_ power. By this I mean, jurors are supposed to only evaluate the laws and the facts, right? They’re not supposed to alter their verdict based on their own convictions? However, since they don’t have to explain their decision and they are free from prosecution for their participation in the trial, they can basically can do it without fear of consequences. My question is: can you admit to having rendered a not guilty verdict even though you thought the person was guilty? Or do you have to lie and say you really thought he wasn’t guilty? If you admit to it, can you be charged with contempt of court or something similar? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/5 "2015-01-23T20:45:58Z")
The basis for jury nullification is that a jury’s verdict of “not guilty” is not reviewable by any other party. A judge can’t throw out a not guilty verdict because it was contrary to the facts or the law. So if a jury votes “not guilty” it doesn’t matter that they believed the defendant committed the acts, and the acts were against the law, but voted “not guilty” anyway. Jury nullification isn’t an intended feature of our justice system, it is an unintended side effect of the fact that jurors can’t be held liable for their decisions. Note that judges can set aside guilty verdicts from the jury–but they can’t do the same for not guilty verdicts. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/6 "2015-01-23T21:17:54Z")
> [@lucid-nonsense](#): > > My question is: can you admit to having rendered a not guilty verdict even though you thought the person was guilty? Or do you have to lie and say you really thought he wasn’t guilty? If you admit to it, can you be charged with contempt of court or something similar? If you admit to it, yes. The _de facto_ existence of jury nullification power basically rests on the fact that the jurors cannot be punished for nullifying unless they say they did it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/7 "2015-01-24T16:46:11Z")
The OP has his legal history wrong. The US criminal system is derived from English common law, which only has two verdicts: Guilty and Not Guilty. The verdict of “Not Proven” is in Scots law, which has three verdicts: Guilty, Not Proven, and Not Guilty. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/8 "2015-01-24T16:54:55Z")
Not Proven is often said by wags to mean “Not guilty, and don’t do it again”. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/9 "2015-01-24T19:24:38Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The verdict of “Not Proven” is in Scots law, which has three verdicts: Guilty, Not Proven, and Not Guilty. Between not guilty and not proven, is there one which is less common, or possibliy even a rare exception? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/10 "2015-01-24T19:48:12Z")
Not that I’m aware of. I’ve only heard of the three Scottish verdicts. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/11 "2015-01-24T20:26:17Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The verdict of “Not Proven” is in Scots law, which has three verdicts: Guilty, Not Proven, and Not Guilty. It is my understanding (and I haven’t done a whole lot of research) that the verdicts of Not Proven and Not Guilty have the same consequences: the Defendant is free from punishment. The distinction is that Not Proven=the state didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defendant might very well be guilty. Not Guilty is different than “Not Guilty” in the normal common law system in that the jury is affirmatively finding that the Defendant did not do it (beyond a reasonable doubt?) and thereby giving him improved standing in the community. Does that sound right? ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/12 "2015-01-25T07:21:44Z")
Does Scots law have some equivalent of American double-jeopardy protection? If verdict is Not Guilty, is defendant forever and irreversibly acquitted, as in American law? If verdict is Not Proven, can defendant be re-tried before a new jury? If prosecutor finds additional evidence, can defendant be re-tried? Is Not Proven something like the American mistrial? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/13 "2015-01-25T08:55:39Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Does Scots law have some equivalent of American double-jeopardy protection? {…} > [@](#): > > The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced three broad exceptions to the rule: where the acquittal had been tainted by an attempt to pervert the course of justice; where the accused admitted his guilt after acquittal; and where there was new evidence. [RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Scotland)[/RIGHT] The full text, [The Double Jeopardy Act (Scotland) 2011](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/16) CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-guilty-vs-not-proven/710693/14 "2015-01-25T12:53:37Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Is Not Proven something like the American mistrial? No, it’s a verdict of the court, ending the proceedings. For more info, see the wiki article: [Not Proven](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven).