Should we add a category for juries to chose: Guilty, Not guilty, or Unproven ?
Of course, the Unproven is the one currently used in Scotland.
Unproven is what O.J. would have gotten with a split jury, for example. There would be no requirement to say it was a hung jury, a failure, but rather a permanent disagreement.
It doesn’t imply either failure of the jury nor a requirement to retry or forfeit for the DA. The case can remain open, as I understand it, so double jeopardy would not be created.
I’ve never understood the logic of the “not proven” verdict in Scotland. If the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, then “not proven” = “not guilty”. It seems to me to be a cop-out to allow the jury effectively to acquit while expressing some reservations about the defendant’s guilt.
Seems to me that the “not proven” verdict is an indictment of the prosecution. It’s saying, in other words, “The presentation of the case, on both sides, leaves us unconvinced of either guilt or innocence. There is still compelling evidence of guilt, but there is still enough doubt to leave us unconvinced.”
It’s an interesting change of view. “Guilty” and “not guilty” verdicts are reflections on the defendant. “Not proven” is a reflection on the lawyers or the court. And that is an important aspect of the legal system. Perhaps if the DA was better, a guilty verdict would have been forthcoming.
I have to agree with TomH and Quixotic. In the courts of the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. If the case isn’t proven you are not guilty. The point of this is to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant as protection of sending the wrong man to prison (I know, this doesn’t always work, but that’s another debate). By giving an Unproven verdict, you are leaving a veil of uncertainty on the defendant instead of clearing him. By leaving the case open and negating double jeopardy, it could potentially allow the govt to continually harass a person they believe is guilty, no matter how many times an “Unproven” verdict is given.
Ok this is a bit of a tangent, but a really weird thing happened to me yesterday. I was walking down a busy high street with my friend about 5:15 when suddenly bam! I feel this blow to each side of my face. This guy just ran up behind me, cracked me on the jaw, and walkes off into the crowd! He totally knocked a lump out of one of my teeth (and my damn dentist is closed for the weekend!) and just ran off. I was stunned and had no idea whay he done it, I figured it was just a psycho playing random punches. Later however, when I had time to think about it, I came up with a guy I liked for the puncher - the guy who I helped to convict as part of a jury (in Scotland) last year. Now I don’t know about the not-proven verdict but I think anonymous juries would be a great improvement. Maybe just a screen over the jury box or something, or even better: blindfold the accused!
Not exactly. To say someone “is innocent” implies either
1)that the jury made a finding of innocence
or
2}that the accused was actually innocent
A not guilty verdict means the burden of proof was not met, and the person was not convicted,and must be treated as innocent.It does not mean a lower burden of proof (like that in a civil case) could not be met ( think OJ) nor does it mean that the person didn't commit the crime. It doesn't even mean the jury _thinks_ the person didn't commit the crime.The only time a not guilty verdict is equivalent to a finding of innocence is when a defense such as justification is used , where the defendant is essentially admitting to say, shooting the victim, but claims it was in self-defense. If the jury finds the defendant to be justified,then they have also found that there was no crime.
The Scottish system that started this thread does have an option for a jury to find a person innocent. I've never heard of that option in the US,and for good reason, I think.If there was a choice of a finding of guilt, one of innocence or no finding ( not proven), those who got a not proven verdict would still be under a cloud, although the state couldn't prove its case.
I think that a “Not Proven” verdict would essentially deny you the right to a speedy trial. If the case was left open, it would be badically like putting the trial on hold while the prosecution scrambled for more evidence. An innocent person could have this potential for prosecution hanging over their head for decades. Furthermore, I suspect that DA’s would take many cases to trial with what they know is insufficient evidence, thinking that they can’t loose–they get a “conviction” if they luck out and get a bloodthirsty jury, and a “noty proven” otherwise.
I think the majority consensus is that a “Not Proven” verdict would simply complicate an already-very-complicated system. Why would we want our trials, which are already far too numerous and lengthy, to grow in number and length?
Personally, I can’t wait 'til scientists find the “criminal” gene in our DNA and discover a means to shut it off…
I personaly would like to see a “not proven” verdict available, but not for any legal reason. I would bar retrials even in cases of not proven verdicts. Its just that I hate seeing the claims of vindication (and sometimes, the acceptance of these claims by people) by defendants who are probably guilty, but beat the rap because of the presence of a small but reasonable doubt.
I was originally ready to dive into the fray, but didn’t because everybody else has pretty well covered the point. But apparently, some people still don’t get it (no offense meant).
Because our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence (you are innocent until WE PROVE your guilt), a verdict of “not proven” means that your presumption of innocence stands. It means that the prosecution has not done the required job of proving your guilt, therefore, you are not guilty. Anything else only clouds the issue and paves the way for more OJ-style post judgement. Whether or not the man killed anybody, I don’t know. Neither does anybody else. But although it was a media circus and had nothing to do with the case at hand, in court he was acquitted. That means that it’s none of anybody’s business to continue speculating whether he did it or not. The matter is settled.
The burden of proof is on the state. You do not have to prove your innocence. If guilt is not proved, then innocence is presumed. PERIOD. And I believe that is the way it should be. Otherwise, unpopular individuals could conceivably be prosecuted continually for anything and everything with no regard for strength of the case until their resources to fight are exhausted and they are imprisoned for failing to prove their innocence.
What you are referring to is a legal principle. Repeat, LEGAL PRINCIPLE. This means that the law operates under these principles. There is no reason why you or I or anyone else cannot, or should not, continue to believe whatever we want, or speculate as much as we want.
As an example, consider a case where the judge has tossed out much of the evidence due to prosecutorial or police misconduct. If the defendant ultimately wins acquittal due to this, he is innocent in the eyes of the law. The legal and penal systems will - and should - treat him as an innocent man. But that will not prevent me, and I suspect even you, from knowing that the guy is really guilty.
Most people would readily reconize this. For some reason, it’s with the principle of “guilty until proven innocent” that people like yourself get confused (no offence meant). It is precisely for this reason that I would like to see a not proven verdict.
The “No contest” plea is a way for the crimninal defendant to be found guilty in the criminal court, but for that guilt not automatically count against him in a civil court.
Say for instance a drunk driver plows into somebody and kills them. He can plead “no contest” to driving under the influence and manslaughter, and be found guilty of those crimes, without that finding of guilt being held against him in a later “wrongful death” civil trial. At the civil trial, the Plaintiff will have the burden of proving that the driver was drunk, that he was driving the car when it crashed into the decedent, etc. If the defendant pleads “guilty”, rather than “no contest”, then the civil plaintiff does not have bother proving liability, because the guilty plea is an admission of liabilty.
[quote]
IzzyR wrote:
Most people would readily reconize this. For some reason, it’s with the principle of “guilty until proven innocent” that people like yourself get confused (no offence meant). It is precisely for this reason that I would like to see a not proven verdict.
[quote]
What it sounds like to me is that what you really want is to add a third category of “innocent”. The “not proven” is pretty much equivalent to our “not guilty”. We just don’t have a separate category when a jury decides to find a person truly innocent.
I think that most people realize that “not guilty” means “not proven”. If you think we need to add another category to handle those cases where a jury thinks he’s probably guilty, but the evidence doesn’t meet the “reasonable doubt” standard, you might be overlooking the fact that the vast majority of “not guilty” verdicts fall into this category already.
Just about the only way for a jury to prove that someone’s innocent is to have a big surprise in the trial. If the prosecutors or grand jury knew about the evidence that clears someone, it would never make it to a petit jury. This happens in movies a lot, but is extremely rare in real life.
Well, there are certainly many who don’t. As an example, see the previous post by Joe_Cool.
I like the idea mostly for informational reasons, as I mentioned earlier. But I would suggest one legal difference between a “Not Guilty” verdict and a “Not Proven” verdict. I would have the government pay all the defendent’s legal fees (and perhaps additional compensation as well) in cases of a “Not Guilty” verdict. In this case it will have been established that the government prosecuted an innocent man.