>It has been criticised by some in the legal world, who argue that the verdict offers additional protection to the accused, ensuring they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.
Isn’t the point to convict someone if you are convinced they are guilty **beyond** a reasonable doubt though?
I suppose they were able to use the “not proven” verdict to leave wiggleroom to continue to accuse Alex Salmond of wrongdoing when he was found not guilty in all but name. So maybe it should go.
If the powers that be really want it to be abolished then it will be. Any campaigns are immaterial. I have a really hard time imagining it’s being done in our interests though.
> ensuring they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.
…but people shouldn’t be convicted if the jury has doubts?
Scottish justice, by and large, is a joke. Obviously, I feel like I have to preface this comment by saying I love Scotland, think Scotland should be given a free vote on independence, and I also hate rapists and murderers.
With that said.
You need 8 out of 15 jurors in Scotland to say you are guilty for you to be guilty. That in itself, is beyond reasonable doubt. If 7 people of 15 hear the same evidence and say they aren’t sure, then you should be free. Completely.
Removing not proven as an option further makes it the most ridiculous part of justice system.
Most people see themselves as a potential victim of crime, rather than a victim of the justice system, as if we don’t all watch documentaries on netflix every week about true crime and wrongful convictions.
3 comments
>It has been criticised by some in the legal world, who argue that the verdict offers additional protection to the accused, ensuring they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.
Isn’t the point to convict someone if you are convinced they are guilty **beyond** a reasonable doubt though?
I suppose they were able to use the “not proven” verdict to leave wiggleroom to continue to accuse Alex Salmond of wrongdoing when he was found not guilty in all but name. So maybe it should go.
If the powers that be really want it to be abolished then it will be. Any campaigns are immaterial. I have a really hard time imagining it’s being done in our interests though.
> ensuring they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.
…but people shouldn’t be convicted if the jury has doubts?
Scottish justice, by and large, is a joke. Obviously, I feel like I have to preface this comment by saying I love Scotland, think Scotland should be given a free vote on independence, and I also hate rapists and murderers.
With that said.
You need 8 out of 15 jurors in Scotland to say you are guilty for you to be guilty. That in itself, is beyond reasonable doubt. If 7 people of 15 hear the same evidence and say they aren’t sure, then you should be free. Completely.
Removing not proven as an option further makes it the most ridiculous part of justice system.
Most people see themselves as a potential victim of crime, rather than a victim of the justice system, as if we don’t all watch documentaries on netflix every week about true crime and wrongful convictions.