2 ms·

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 m

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.