Body & Soul2 mins ago
Salmond Innocent
Just been announced on Radio 2 that he has been found innocent of all charges.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ken4155. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
steg - // Only on one account, he was found not guilty on 12 accounts.(which under Scottish law, the court said he didn’t do it) //
I don't believe the court did say that - I believe the court said the evidence presented did not prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he did do it, which is not actually the same thing.
I don't believe the court did say that - I believe the court said the evidence presented did not prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he did do it, which is not actually the same thing.
Steg - // Your interpretation for not guilty is pretty much the definition for not proven //
Not as I understand the difference between the two terms - and there must be a difference, otherwise the courts would not differentiate between the two -
I believe the 'Not Guilty' verdict applies when the evidence has been heard, and the jury believes it does not indicate to their satisfaction that the crime was been committed, whereas the 'Not Proven' verdict indicates that the jury does not believe that any evidence was presented that indicates that the crime was committed.
I believe that to be the distinction, and that is why the two terms are used.
Not as I understand the difference between the two terms - and there must be a difference, otherwise the courts would not differentiate between the two -
I believe the 'Not Guilty' verdict applies when the evidence has been heard, and the jury believes it does not indicate to their satisfaction that the crime was been committed, whereas the 'Not Proven' verdict indicates that the jury does not believe that any evidence was presented that indicates that the crime was committed.
I believe that to be the distinction, and that is why the two terms are used.
“I would imagine the jury were well vetted by both sides. 8 of those selected were women.”
As mentioned, “Jury vetting” as such does not exist (well certainly not in England & Wales and I imagine the same applies in Scotland).
In E&W all potential jurors are subject to a “Disclosure and Barring” service check to see if they have any criminal convictions which preclude them from service. Other than that, only in cases involving national security or terrorism are further, more detailed checks undertaken and only then with the permission of the Attorney General.
It’s not at all odd that there were eight women. Juries in Scotland consist of fifteen people and since they are chosen at random, 8:7 is a fairly likely outcome (more likely than 8:4 in E&W). Only a simple majority verdict is needed for the jury’s decision.
“Whatever any of us think about the man, he has been declared innocent of all charges”
“Aren’t you innocent until proven guilty?”
Ah! The delicious and regular argument. :-)
Leaving aside the Scottish “Not Proven” option for a moment, “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal convention, not a fact. The convention is in place because the prosecution has to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”. Until they do so you are not guilty – legally. That is to say, you have not been found guilty in court. However, if you steal a loaf of bread from a shop but nobody sees you take it, as soon as you do so you are guilty of that offence. No legal niceties alter that. There may be no evidence to prove you did it, but guilty you are nonetheless. But you will remain “Not Guilty” legally because there was no proof you committed the crime. If there is no evidence but some fool in the CPS laid charges nonetheless, you would be found Not Guilty in court. But you’re not innocent. I would therefore respectfully disagree with the Learned Judge whom Corby refers to.
The “Not Proven” option in Scotland stems from when juries were not asked to make findings of guilt but only of proof. They had two options: “Proven” and “Not Proven”. But juries began to assert their right to find the defendant “Not Guilty” as an alternative form of acquittal. This gradually gained ground but the third option of “Not Proven” was retained. Today that third option is used when the jury is not convinced of a defendant’s innocence but cannot find sufficient proof to find him guilty. There is a considerable difference between Scottish law and English law in that the in Scotland, generally, the testimony of a single witness alone is insufficient. There must be corroboration. So the jury may hear from a single witness whom they believe to be credible and 100% truthful, but without corroboration they cannot convict. That's when the “Not Proven” verdict rears its ugly head.
There have been calls over the last half century or so to scrap the third option. These have come particularly from campaigners for justice in rape and serious sexual assault cases (where very often only one witness – the alleged victim – gives evidence). But up to now those calls have been resisted.
As mentioned, “Jury vetting” as such does not exist (well certainly not in England & Wales and I imagine the same applies in Scotland).
In E&W all potential jurors are subject to a “Disclosure and Barring” service check to see if they have any criminal convictions which preclude them from service. Other than that, only in cases involving national security or terrorism are further, more detailed checks undertaken and only then with the permission of the Attorney General.
It’s not at all odd that there were eight women. Juries in Scotland consist of fifteen people and since they are chosen at random, 8:7 is a fairly likely outcome (more likely than 8:4 in E&W). Only a simple majority verdict is needed for the jury’s decision.
“Whatever any of us think about the man, he has been declared innocent of all charges”
“Aren’t you innocent until proven guilty?”
Ah! The delicious and regular argument. :-)
Leaving aside the Scottish “Not Proven” option for a moment, “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal convention, not a fact. The convention is in place because the prosecution has to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”. Until they do so you are not guilty – legally. That is to say, you have not been found guilty in court. However, if you steal a loaf of bread from a shop but nobody sees you take it, as soon as you do so you are guilty of that offence. No legal niceties alter that. There may be no evidence to prove you did it, but guilty you are nonetheless. But you will remain “Not Guilty” legally because there was no proof you committed the crime. If there is no evidence but some fool in the CPS laid charges nonetheless, you would be found Not Guilty in court. But you’re not innocent. I would therefore respectfully disagree with the Learned Judge whom Corby refers to.
The “Not Proven” option in Scotland stems from when juries were not asked to make findings of guilt but only of proof. They had two options: “Proven” and “Not Proven”. But juries began to assert their right to find the defendant “Not Guilty” as an alternative form of acquittal. This gradually gained ground but the third option of “Not Proven” was retained. Today that third option is used when the jury is not convinced of a defendant’s innocence but cannot find sufficient proof to find him guilty. There is a considerable difference between Scottish law and English law in that the in Scotland, generally, the testimony of a single witness alone is insufficient. There must be corroboration. So the jury may hear from a single witness whom they believe to be credible and 100% truthful, but without corroboration they cannot convict. That's when the “Not Proven” verdict rears its ugly head.
There have been calls over the last half century or so to scrap the third option. These have come particularly from campaigners for justice in rape and serious sexual assault cases (where very often only one witness – the alleged victim – gives evidence). But up to now those calls have been resisted.
steg - // Scotland had proven, not proven....
Not guilty was brought in to show that the person was actually innocent //
Your interpretation, and mine, are both comprehensively eclipsed by the offering from Newjudge who, as usual, can offer the definitive explanation, for which I am grateful, and I am sure you are too.
Not guilty was brought in to show that the person was actually innocent //
Your interpretation, and mine, are both comprehensively eclipsed by the offering from Newjudge who, as usual, can offer the definitive explanation, for which I am grateful, and I am sure you are too.
//There must be corroboration. So the jury may hear from a single witness whom they believe to be credible and 100% truthful, but without corroboration they cannot convict. That's when the “Not Proven” verdict rears its ugly head. //
If there was no corroboration then I don’t think it would get to court in first place.
If there was no corroboration then I don’t think it would get to court in first place.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.