I had a really nice response written out, but IE crashed on me, and I don’t feel like retyping it all. So this short note will have to do.
Am I reading you correctly? Did you even read my post? The entire point of it is that we ALREADY have a verdict of “not proven”, only we call it “not guilty”. So there is no need to give juries a “not proven” option.
Joe,
I did read your response. I am referring to following statements in your post.
My point is to have a verdict of “Not Proven” under which NOTHING is presumed. I would still not allow further trials, even under such a verdict.
CurtC wrote “I think that most people realize that “not guilty” means “not proven”.” By this he meant that the not guilty verdict means that neither innocence nor guilt have been established. You clearly have a different attitude.
Sorry to get you worked up. (It’s a shame we missed the “really nice response”).
Actually, it should prevent that. In fact, there is a very good reason why we should not and cannot continue to believe and speculate whatever we want: We don’t know the facts of the case! Do you believe everything you see on TV? Do you believe CNN or the local news shows are reliable sources of unbiased fact? If they were reliable sources, then why bother with witnesses in court? They could just subpoena news broadcasts. After all, the media try cases much more quickly than the courts do…(that was sarcasm, for those who missed it). You are wholly unqualified to make a rational judgment on a criminal case unless you were a) present at the commission of the crime, or b) present in the court room when the facts were presented. Your attitude on this is the reason why lynch mobs have been so popular throughout our history. Whether you agree with a conviction or acquittal is none of anybody’s business but your own. But you have to abide by it.
Don’t misunderstand me…I think our legal system is in dire need of an overhaul, but it’s common sense that the jury and judge hearing a case have more information and are in a much better position to make a determination of guilt or innocence than you or I.
Even me!
Oh, by the way, let’s assume that your wish was granted and there was a new plea/verdict option, so now you can be Guilty, Not Proven, or Innocent. how exactly would a person go about getting a verdict of Innocent (as opposed to Not Proven)? Would it automatically be bestowed on everyone who is not proven guilty, in the same sense that Not Guilty is used now? If so, then why bother? Would Innocent carry a higher standard of evidence?
How would you work it if it happened?
Ok, I must have partially misunderstood you. Yes, my attitude is clearly different. On that we don’t disagree at all. 
I strongly and vehemently approve of the presumption of innocence being the basis of our judicial system. A person should not have to take time out of his schedule, spend his money, etc, to defend himself without having given somebody a very strong reason and sufficient evidence to suspect him of a crime. I like the fact that you cannot be arbitrarily tried for an offense, even if for no other reason that trials are too expensive and time-consuming to waste time trying people without strong cause. You should not need to establish your innocence. The burden is on the State to establish your guilt. To have it any other way makes abuse too easy.
I’m not sure what the point, if any, is of your last post. No one has suggested is this thread that a person’s presumtion of innocence be taken away. Certainly not me, in any event.
But I will respond to your previous post
In some cases the facts are obvious, and the verdict is a matter of judgement. In some cases (the example I cited in which evidence is suppressed) the observers actually know more than the jury. But in any event, there are very few areas of life in which people have no opinion on anything which has not been proven in a court of law. Obviously the legal system works acording to jury’s verdict. But it remains to each person to decide what they believe really happened. I personally would be a little more wary of OJ Simpson if he flew into a temper around me, than I would be of a non-murderer. Would you?
This is also puzzling. Who suggested not abiding by the jury’s verdict?
The jury would decide this. I have nothing against juries, despite what you seem to think.
You seem to have a problem with answering a question though…
Pretend I am in a position to alter the judicial system in such a way that there will now be the three options mentioned above, but I leave it up to you, personally, to determine the implementation. What requirements would you give for an “innocent” verdict as opposed to a “not proven” verdict? You advocate the change, so I assume you have at least some notion of how you think it should work. If not, you’re sure wasting a lot of keystrokes pushing a change you don’t have an opinion on.
So again, in your opinion, what is the practical difference between “not proven” and “innocent”? What would make YOU judge a man as one and not the other? (we are assuming guilt has not been established for the purpose of this discussion, leaving one of the other two options)
Um, You did.
That the jury believes that the defence has proved the defendent’s innocence beyond reasonable doubt (perhaps some lesser standard of proof such as “preponderence of evidence” should suffice)
There is a difference between knowing that an acquitted man is really guilty and “not abiding by the jury’s verdict”.
Speaking of not answering questions, what about mine? To repeat, would you be more wary of OJ than you would of a non-murderer?
Good heavens . . . so in a case where the prosecution does such a weak job that the entire case of the defense counsel is, “The defense rests,” the defendant would not be eligibile for an “innocent” verdict? I think this would be, put as politely as possible, just about the worst idea I’ve ever heard. Why on Earth would you consider shifting even an iota of the burden of proof to the defense?
Oh wait a second, pldennison has shown up. Lets all gather round and hear what he, in his wisdom, has to say.
Seriously, I would suggest that you actually read the thread before commenting. I realize that you’re busy and all…
Pldennison,
On second thought, I might have left a false impression. Change that to “if the jury believes the defendent to be innocent beyond reasonable doubt”, or whatever standard of proof is required. It makes no difference if this belief is due to the defence proving it, or any other reason.
My previous comment stands regarding your final sentence.
Oh, I’ve read the thread, Izzy. Let’s see, we can go back and start with your first post, where you say:
So here, you admit that you want to restructure our entire legal system because some verdicts offend your sensibilities. Well, that’s sound reasoning.
So, again, I’ll ask you, since you are so fond of dismissing contradictory arguments as “irrelevant” and dodging questions:
Why on Earth would you consider shifting even an iota of the burden of proof to the defense? (Note that, by doing so, you require the defense to prove, “I didn’t do it,” a negative proposition.)
Restructure the entire legal system? What’s the big deal about adding another possible verdict? Maybe you’re onto something that I’m not. Enlighten me.
I will answer you, since you are so fond of asking questions that pretend people said things that they never said:
I would not require the defence to prove anything. The burden of proof would not be shifted to the defence. Not even one iota. A “not guilty” verdict will continue to mean exactly what it does today - the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case, and the defendent is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. The only thing that would change is that another verdict would be available which would allow the jury to express their decision that the defendent is innocent beyond reasonable doubt. In this way it would be more clear that a “not guilty” verdict means what it actually does - that guilt has not been proved. It will not be confused with a finding that innocence has been proved.
I don’t anticipate this being a problem for any defendent. Anyone who does not want to prove his innocence will not have to do this. But any defendent would be bringing up any proof of his innocence anyway, if possible. Furthemore, I also suggested that in cases in which innocence is proved that the gov’t pay attorney fees, and possibly compensate the defendent for his ordeal.
Is this really the worst idea you’ve ever heard? I’m honored.
You said,
…But you also said,
So you are the one who has suggested a defendant should be required to prove his innocence. This is where we differ, and the heart of the entire question.
Only a minor one. Perception becomes reality. If you believe (however wrongly or for whatever reason) that somebody is guilty, then you will treat them as such. Which is not abiding by the verdict. You’re quibbling over semantics.
I don’t think so. And as far as my personal knowledge is concerned, and because of the verdict levied against him by a jury, OJ IS a non-murderer. I guess you have proof otherwise?
The idea that PLD and I are on the same side of a debate really frightens me. haha
Joe,
First point - good point. I was unclear. I meant that the jury’s verdict does not add anything to the presumtion of innocence. The defendent would retain the presumtion of innocence that he had prior to trial. Sorry for the confusion. My fault.
Second point - bad point. If “abide by the verdict” means how I treat that person in my personal life, there is no reason for me to abide by the verdict. The verdict pertains only to the justice and penal system.
Third point - astonishing point. Nothing personal, but I find it hard to believe that this is truly your attitude.
Can we go back a little bit, Izzy, and can you answer something for me? I’m not asking to be snide or sarcastic–I really want to establish something. Also, I think we’re arguing two different points at the same time.
Are you concerned that truly innocent people are being stigmatized by the “not guilty” verdict, which to most people means “the prosecution didn’t do it’s job”; or are you concerned that truly guilty people are not being sufficiently stigmatized by the “not guilty” verdict, which most people take to mean “innocent”?
It seems you’ve argued both, and if you really believe both, that’s fine; but what legal purpose, aside from the addition or removal of stigma, is served by adding another verdict category?
As far as the defense offering up evidence of their innocence, for whatever purpose (even the purpose of receiving an “innocent” versus a “not guilty” verdict), this still shifts the burden. The defense counsel’s only job is to contest what the prosecution says. It isn’t just a semantic difference, either.
If the prosecution produces a witness stating that he saw the defendant at such-and-such a place at whatever time, the defense only has to show that the witness is unreliable or could have misidentified the defendant. They do not have to show that the defendant was elsewhere.
Once the prosecution rests, the defense is not legally required to say a single word or call a single witness, and if they feel they prosecution’s case is particularly weak or has been demonstrated to be poor, they can call for dismissal or summary judgement. I, for one, think this is an excellent legal principle, and I can’t imagine why you’d want to alter it at all.
pldennison,
In principle, I would be troubled by both issues you describe. But I am, as a practical matter, more annoyed by guilty people removing their stigma becouse I think this more commonly happens. Most people who are found not guilty, and their supporters, celebrate their acquittals as being vindications for themselves. In many cases they’ve only beat the rap due to reasonable doubt.
This is my main reason for wanting the innocent verdict, and I don’t see why you seem to think it’s such an enormous overhaul of the justice system. Seems to me that all it would require is for the judges to change their instructions to the jury.
But I also think it is right for the government to compensate the truly innocent. Many innocents have had their lives ruined and their finances (and those of their freinds and relatives) defending themselves against charges that have ultimately been found to be baseless. Sometimes an acquittal is not enough.
As I’ve written before all this would remain under the proposed “innocent” verdict as well.
What would this even accomplish in the grand scheme of things? Is someone treated any differently with the designations? I eman, you lose rights when you are guilty of a crime, potentially. If you are deemed not guilkty, you do not. What would be the difference between not guilty and unproven?
If there is a difference, then you are suffering or making peopel suffer for a crime they were not proven to commit, which is a perversioon of justice.
If there is no difference, then all we are doing is adding some PC-speak language to make us somehow feel better about our siciety while changing nothing, and this kind of posturing is a pointless excercise that I would have no part of.
So either way, I fail to see the merits in this idea.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, one week, four days, 8 hours, 29 minutes and 57 seconds.
4094 cigarettes not smoked, saving $511.77.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 5 hours, 10 minutes.
I don’t really have anything new to add yet…I just don’t want to see this thread die. Unless we convinced you.
Izzy?