| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 77200 | 2007-03-02 01:24:00 | Should Rickards Keep His Job. | Trev (427) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 529355 | 2007-03-02 20:26:00 | We need the Scottish system here, where there are 3 verdicts. Guilty Not Proven Not Guilty. Given the now-known facts, the outcome, in my opinion, is "not proven" in this instance, mostly by the passage of time. That would not mean "not guilty". As Wikipedia says, amongst other things - Modern use In modern use, the not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to double jeopardy. The real effect of a not proven verdict is stigma for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person's reputation, as when socialite Madeleine Smith was charged with murder in nineteenth century Glasgow but acquitted with a not proven verdict. I see in the Herald this morning that one writer incorrectly says that the not proven verdict would mean the accused could be retried but it seems from the above that is not the case (also that is my memory of the particular verdict). Misty :( |
Misty (368) | ||
| 529356 | 2007-03-02 21:45:00 | As Wikipedia says, amongst other things - I see in the Herald this morning that one writer incorrectly says that the not proven verdict would mean the accused could be retried but it seems from the above that is not the case (also that is my memory of the particular verdict). Misty :( I don't know Scottish jurisprudence, but from my memory of when I did a law degree several decades ago, we were taught that: guilty = proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and not guity = not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, a not guilty verdict does not = innocence. It could be that a defendant who was found not guilty, in fact 'wasn't innocent' but the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is relevant in some situations where a criminal prosecution fails, but a civil case with a lower level of proof is successful. I think the OJ Simpson case in America was an example of this happening. The only point I am dredging up from the murky depths of my past life is that I don't see why we need three kinds of verdict in Enzed, because in effect, we already have one that says proven, and another that means not proven. I don't see what the Scottish model can add to that. The only thing that could change the situation here would be to have guilty, not guilty, and innocent! Somehow I doubt that would work - how many juries would be willing to say someone was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? The sloppy leavings that pass for journalism in Enzed, coupled with the exertions of defendants (like the present shower) and defence lawyers, continually muddy what is meant by a not guilty verdict. I doubt it is much comfort to the present complainant and Louise Nicholas, but the jury verdicts in these cases don't necessarily mean that the jury thought they were innocent - only that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That is what you get when you have an adversary system like ours in the criminal courts. The whole thing is about who wins the battle. Again, we were taught that the continental 'inquisitorial system' is focussed on finding the truth, whereas the English common law system we have inherited isn't primarily interested in finding the truth - it is more about who can make the best case. I hope someone will correct me if my memory is faulty or the legal situation has changed in the intervening century! |
John H (8) | ||
| 529357 | 2007-03-02 23:49:00 | I don't care if the jury found them not guilty. They had to. Law and justice are 2 different things. Take a look at the Herald this morning. He can go rot somewhere. They jury didn't have to find them not guilty - they had to weigh up the evidence and make a decision. Clearly they thought the case wasn't made just as the Wellington jury had earlier found that it was. It seems in New Zealand some people want an accusation to be sufficient for a hanging. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 529358 | 2007-03-03 00:25:00 | I don't know Scottish jurisprudence, but from my memory of when I did a law degree several decades ago, we were taught that: guilty = proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and not guity = not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, a not guilty verdict does not = innocence. It could be that a defendant who was found not guilty, in fact 'wasn't innocent' but the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is relevant in some situations where a criminal prosecution fails, but a civil case with a lower level of proof is successful. I think the OJ Simpson case in America was an example of this happening. The only point I am dredging up from the murky depths of my past life is that I don't see why we need three kinds of verdict in Enzed, because in effect, we already have one that says proven, and another that means not proven. I don't see what the Scottish model can add to that. The only thing that could change the situation here would be to have guilty, not guilty, and innocent! Your study of law seems to have left out a bit on English. Guilty = guilty. Not guilty = exactly that... NOT guilty. If someone's not guilty, they're innocent. I mean if you're not guilty, what are you? Partly guilty? I don't think so. The Scottish way is excellent. |
Greg (193) | ||
| 529359 | 2007-03-03 02:08:00 | Your study of law seems to have left out a bit on English. Guilty = guilty. Not guilty = exactly that... NOT guilty. If someone's not guilty, they're innocent. I mean if you're not guilty, what are you? Partly guilty? I don't think so. The Scottish way is excellent. Not guilty according to criminal law does not mean that you are didn't do what the prosecutor alleged you did. It just means that the prosecution could not prove their case to the required standard of proof. Your argument that " Not guilty = exactly that... NOT guilty" is a tautology that proves nothing. |
John H (8) | ||
| 529360 | 2007-03-03 02:50:00 | Thats right John. I have to agree with you. I have been on 3 jurys and not all the charges the accused were alleged to have done could we find them guilty of, thats not to say they had not done them, but because of lack of evidence they got off. The accussed lie on the stand you know, swearing on the bible means nothing to them. One of the jurys I was on was for the accused second trial, because the first jury couldn't come to an agreement on the first trial, but we found the accused guilty. We found out later that everything the accused had said in the second trial was a pack of lies. Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 529361 | 2007-03-03 03:41:00 | Not guilty according to criminal law does not mean that you are didn't do what the prosecutor alleged you did. It just means that the prosecution could not prove their case to the required standard of proof. Your argument that "Not guilty = exactly that... NOT guilty" is a tautology that proves nothing.Balls. Not guilty means exactly that. How much clearer does it need to be made ***? Think of a hypothetical situation where I accuse you of stealing fruit from my orchard. You may have been in Timbuktoo at the time. So the allegation is obviously wrong. You're found not guilty in court. So does that mean you MAY have stolen the fruit despite the verdict? Get real. | Greg (193) | ||
| 529362 | 2007-03-03 03:44:00 | Balls. Not guilty means exactly that. How much clearer does it need to be made ***? Apparently a lot clearer for you! You seem to confuse English with the law. |
John H (8) | ||
| 529363 | 2007-03-03 04:19:00 | Yes Greg, not guilty dosen't mean the didn't do the crime. I wonder how many people are walking around who actually did a crime but were found not guilty through lack of evidence. I would say quite a few. Just like the jury gets it wrong the other way round and finds someone guilty when they are not. Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 529364 | 2007-03-03 04:45:00 | I think you're missing my point.. I'm not say a not guilty verdict means the person isn't guilty. I'm saying the person has been found to be not guilty by the court process. And not guilty means innocent, ie not guilty. So he/she has been found to be innocent according to the law. Not neccesarily according to fact. | Greg (193) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||