10 ms·
>> He was found guilty of the second charge; but on the first, he received the peculiarly Scottish verdict of “not proven.” This is an interesting alternative
by docdeek 8y ago
>> He was found guilty of the second charge; but on the first, he received the peculiarly Scottish verdict of “not proven.”
This is an interesting alternative to the binary guilty/not guilty verdict. Notably, Senator Arlen Specter wanted to vote "not proven" on Bill Clinton's impeachment:
"Juries in criminal cases under the laws of Scotland have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proven. Given the option in this trial, I suspect that many Senators would choose 'not proven' instead of 'not guilty'. That is my verdict: not proven. The President has dodged perjury by calculated evasion and poor interrogation. Obstruction of justice fails by gaps in the proofs."
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/specter.html http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate...
- gadders 8y agoJuries in Scotland also have 15 people, not 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury_in_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury_in_Scotland
- docdeek 8y agoI grew up in Australia where a jury consists of 12 people. I've lived in France for the last 12 years, though, and here the jury (when there is one) it will typically be either 6 or 9 citizens. One of the overseas territories uses a jury system that only has 4 people, and then expands to 6 on appeal. It would be interesting to understand how the 'Anglo Saxon' system (outside of Scotland, it seems) settled on 12 people.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoIt wouldn't surprise me to find it's based on the twelve apostles, that Jesus Christ used as his witnesses.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]