3 ms·

Everytime I read about this issue I wish we had the Scottish 'Not Proven' [0]. Many of these cases are murky and it is impossible to determine guilty or not gui

Everytime I read about this issue I wish we had the Scottish 'Not Proven' [0]. Many of these cases are murky and it is impossible to determine guilty or not guilty. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

belorn 9y ago
For a crime which the mere accusation often leads to people being fired from work, kicked out of schools, vigilante justice, and social shunning, having a implication of guilt but no formal conviction seems like a setting a torch next to a powder keg, then moving away while saying "not my fault if it explodes".
jdietrich 9y ago
There's a reason they call it the bastard verdict. A system with three verdicts creates an uncomfortable muddying of the presumption of innocence. A verdict that implies "we think you did it, but we can't prove it" might be comforting to a plaintiff, but it's potentially hugely damaging to a defendant.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  It is a lot less damaging than being wrongly convicted. The issue with almost all these cases is if the presumption of innocence was applied consistently nobody would ever be convicted. The juries are basically put in the position of trying to determine a binary outcome from an event that is often too murky to allow this. The wiki article does discuss the positive impact of this verdict on sexual assault cases.
  - mamon 9y ago
    >> The juries are basically put in the position of trying to determine a binary outcome from an event that is often too murky to allow this. If the event is "too murky" then I would argue it shouldn't even be covered by the criminal law (or any law). Let's convict only in cases where it is possible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and leave those ambiguous, murky ones as something to settle between two adults (for lack of better term let's call them "alleged victim" and "alleged abuser").
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Juries don't get to choose the cases put before them. There is also the minor issue of what is reasonable doubt. As we have learned from the number of innocent people freed from death row in recent years juries don't always get it right. Let's give them more than a black or white option to a grey world.
      - mamon 9y ago
        When the case reaches the jury it's already too late - accused student can be suspended and otherwise punished a long time before that. We've lowered the threshold of what triggers an investigation to such ridiculous level that we are getting a lot of false positives. Why the universities even need special internal policies about sexual abuse? Why college students cannot be prosecuted according to the same criminal laws as the rest of the society? Why do we need this ideologically biased Title IX personnel, instead of relying on police and DA office to investigate? College students are at least 18 years old - let's treat them like adults, not like vulnerable, stray children.
gozur88 9y ago
But that's exactly what "not guilty" means. Would it really matter that much if we changed the words?
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Well not quite. The wiki article is worth reading.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    I read the wiki article. In practical terms it's the same thing. If you don't have enough evidence to prove the accused committed a crime, it really doesn't matter whether or not you think he did it. A "not guilty" verdict in the US means the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard wasn't met. It doesn't mean anything more or less. A "not proven" verdict in Scotland means... there's not enough evidence to prove he did this, but he looks kinda shifty? I might support a verdict of "innocent", meaning the defense proved the accused could not have committed the crime for which he was accused.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Exactly. It means we don't think the person is innocent, but we don't have enough evidence to convict. The problem with providing juries with only two outcomes where the evidence is not open and shut, is that you are forcing the jury to make a choice they really can't on the evidence available. It is especially hard when the victim is believable and the accused shifty. Many times juries convict when they shouldn't. On the topic of "beyond a reasonable doubt" why is this not turned into an actual probability. Juries have no difficulty dealing with probabilities in civil cases, but apparently in criminal cases they can't be told what reasonable doubt means.
Lazare 9y ago
We do. Our system has "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". We don't have an "innocent" verdict, nor any concept of proving someone innocent. What our system lacks is the Scottish "not guilty"; not the Scottish "not proven".
- danieltillett 9y ago
  That is not how people on juries think. Forcing people to make a binary choice when it is not possible just results in miscarriages of justice.

belorn 9y ago

For a crime which the mere accusation often leads to people being fired from work, kicked out of schools, vigilante justice, and social shunning, having a implication of guilt but no formal conviction seems like a setting a torch next to a powder keg, then moving away while saying "not my fault if it explodes".

jdietrich 9y ago

There's a reason they call it the bastard verdict. A system with three verdicts creates an uncomfortable muddying of the presumption of innocence. A verdict that implies "we think you did it, but we can't prove it" might be comforting to a plaintiff, but it's potentially hugely damaging to a defendant.

danieltillett 9y ago
It is a lot less damaging than being wrongly convicted. The issue with almost all these cases is if the presumption of innocence was applied consistently nobody would ever be convicted. The juries are basically put in the position of trying to determine a binary outcome from an event that is often too murky to allow this. The wiki article does discuss the positive impact of this verdict on sexual assault cases.
- mamon 9y ago
  >> The juries are basically put in the position of trying to determine a binary outcome from an event that is often too murky to allow this. If the event is "too murky" then I would argue it shouldn't even be covered by the criminal law (or any law). Let's convict only in cases where it is possible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and leave those ambiguous, murky ones as something to settle between two adults (for lack of better term let's call them "alleged victim" and "alleged abuser").
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Juries don't get to choose the cases put before them. There is also the minor issue of what is reasonable doubt. As we have learned from the number of innocent people freed from death row in recent years juries don't always get it right. Let's give them more than a black or white option to a grey world.
    - mamon 9y ago
      When the case reaches the jury it's already too late - accused student can be suspended and otherwise punished a long time before that. We've lowered the threshold of what triggers an investigation to such ridiculous level that we are getting a lot of false positives. Why the universities even need special internal policies about sexual abuse? Why college students cannot be prosecuted according to the same criminal laws as the rest of the society? Why do we need this ideologically biased Title IX personnel, instead of relying on police and DA office to investigate? College students are at least 18 years old - let's treat them like adults, not like vulnerable, stray children.

gozur88 9y ago

But that's exactly what "not guilty" means. Would it really matter that much if we changed the words?

danieltillett 9y ago
Well not quite. The wiki article is worth reading.
- gozur88 9y ago
  I read the wiki article. In practical terms it's the same thing. If you don't have enough evidence to prove the accused committed a crime, it really doesn't matter whether or not you think he did it. A "not guilty" verdict in the US means the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard wasn't met. It doesn't mean anything more or less. A "not proven" verdict in Scotland means... there's not enough evidence to prove he did this, but he looks kinda shifty? I might support a verdict of "innocent", meaning the defense proved the accused could not have committed the crime for which he was accused.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Exactly. It means we don't think the person is innocent, but we don't have enough evidence to convict. The problem with providing juries with only two outcomes where the evidence is not open and shut, is that you are forcing the jury to make a choice they really can't on the evidence available. It is especially hard when the victim is believable and the accused shifty. Many times juries convict when they shouldn't. On the topic of "beyond a reasonable doubt" why is this not turned into an actual probability. Juries have no difficulty dealing with probabilities in civil cases, but apparently in criminal cases they can't be told what reasonable doubt means.

Lazare 9y ago

We do. Our system has "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". We don't have an "innocent" verdict, nor any concept of proving someone innocent. What our system lacks is the Scottish "not guilty"; not the Scottish "not proven".

danieltillett 9y ago
That is not how people on juries think. Forcing people to make a binary choice when it is not possible just results in miscarriages of justice.