Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think the 'Not Proven' verdict is pointless

47 replies

Ghirly · 26/04/2014 03:38

As it technically means the accused walks free?

From what I know, Not Proven is for when the jury do not believe the accused is innocent yet feel there is not enough evidence to convict.
So where does that leave the victim?

I have witnessed my friend being destroyed by a crime yet her accused has walked free.....
Doesn't seem fair.

OP posts:

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 16:01

The Omagh case is fascinating. Lower standard of proof in civil cases - it's on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

No worries Caitlin it is a peculiarly Scottish verdict :)

Yep Teacher trials are indeed very messy and complex things. Agree on the rights of the accused too.

I'm guessing a lot of Scots here as we are all using phrases like "accused" and "fiscal"

ithaka · 26/04/2014 16:02

The 'not proven' verdict is horrific for the victims. However, 'not guilty' would be even more of a slap in the face. The criminal justice system is weighted so heavily in favour of the accused, who can delay and delay a trial, causing endless suffering and distressed, while the accused is on bail so has no motivation to take it to trial.

2 acquittal verdicts is pointless, but so much of 'justice' is a pointless charade. If you or anyone who love is ever victim of a serious crime, be prepared to by horrified by how 'justice' works in this country. Ignorance truly is bliss.

ComposHat · 26/04/2014 16:03

I was on a jury that returned a not proven guilty. As a jury we suspected the accused had committed the crime but there wss a lack of corroboration (another quirk of Scots law) and wanted to mark this.

Actually I think there's more logic in getting rid of not guilty as a verdict. Proven/ not proven reflects what you are asked to do as a jury: decide if the prosecutionhave proved the case against the defendant not make judgements about innocence and guilt.

AgentProvocateur · 26/04/2014 16:04

I'm not explaining myself well (hungover)! I realise that they both mean equally that the accused is free of all charges etc. But I think the NP verdict can leave the victim or witnesses feeling that they were more "believed" than the NG verdict.

caruthers · 26/04/2014 16:11

Would 3 verdicts be better?

Guilty.

Not guilty.

And not proven.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 16:16

I have heard that argument before ithaka and I really understand the frustration for complainers - it's an imperfect system and I have seen first hand the effects the delays can have. But it is for the Crown to prove the case, the accused doesn't have to do a thing and that is how it should be. The accused doesn't take the matter to trial, the Crown has to do it all and in my experience the delays are usually from the Crown end.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 16:17

Caruthers that's what we have in Scotland

ComposHat · 26/04/2014 16:19

I think not. If the case against you isn't proven against you. You should be able to leave the court without the taint of suspicion that the not proven verdict implies at present. (A taint that would disappear if proven/not proven were the only verdicts available)

shockinglybadteacher · 26/04/2014 16:20

Ruby, loads of Scots here :) I'm a Scot and have seen the Scottish justice system from multiple sides, however I still think we do a lot better than many other places.

Ithaka a loved one of mine was the victim of a serious crime, however I am thankful for how justice worked in that case. The judge did what was right, as did the agent and also the accused himself(finally). It was a horror, but everything worked how it was supposed to. I do not want that replaced with mob justice.

It was the accused's right to decide on his plea. He was not released on bail, as his crime did not permit that. Nothing he could ever have done or have been suspected of doing could ever add up to him being refused a fair trial. I wanted him to be tried fairly and sentenced fairly. He was, and I live in hope.

I'm not a naïve happy-clappy person who thinks that all criminals are misunderstood and should be given cuddles and presents. But I do think that loads of people who go around going on about "hang them all! beat the crap out of them! LOL they are going to get raped in prison" do not in the least understand what the experience is like for the victim's family, the accused's family and everyone involved.

ithaka · 26/04/2014 16:29

I will not say much on this thread, because it is too deeply upsetting for me. But many people accused of murder are released on bail - that is now allowed. As for the delays - it is all about the accused - everyone is running round after then protecting their interests. No one gives a shiny shit about the victims whose lives are decimated, with delay after delay, all to protect the accused rights, prolonging the level of mental anguish and torture that ought to be illegal.

I never said anything about "hang them all! beat the crap out of them! LOL they are going to get raped in prison", so don't you dare put words in my mouth. Just because it works out for you doesn't make it all right - or does other people's suffering not count?

Justice in this country is fucked up. A lot of people do very well out of the system so have no desire to look to deeply into it, ad the victims are too broken and defeated to fight the vested interests.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 16:38

Ithaka I see what you mean about the delays being about the accused. The complainer has no standing in our system other than as a witness and that definitely gives rise to feelings of injustice. A few people do very well out of the criminal justice process that's true but those who can change it are not the lawyers but those in government. It sounds as though you or someone you know has been put through the ringer. I'm sorry if any of this is triggering. We seem to have derailed the thread a little anyway.

shockinglybadteacher · 26/04/2014 16:40

Ithaka, I feel very sad for you and I apologise if I hurt you. I suspect we have had very similar experiences but didn't feel the same about them. It affects all of us differently, and I shouldn't have expressed my feelings in such a clumsy way. I am sorry.

To explain a little bit, the victim in the case I was involved in is dead. There was no bail in the accused's case. He is now serving a life sentence for murder.

I felt very unhappy and really struggled with people telling me "I bet you wish we still had the death penalty!" or "I'd want to see him SUFFER" or that sort of thing. I am not anti death penalty. I am pro it in certain circumstances. When I separated my feelings from my belief, I didn't and do not agree that the guilty person should have been put to death.

ithaka · 26/04/2014 16:43

Thank you for your understanding Ruby this is deeply triggering and I should really hide this thread. My family has been through hell in the criminal justice system and the 'not proven' verdict was just part of the horror of the whole terrible and scarring experience. No one would believe how bad it is unless they have lived it. As you say, the victim is nothing in the system - I was a 'witness', not a victim, as it was my son who was killed.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 16:47

I'm so sorry for your loss Ithaka The sun is about over the yardarm now so

Original poster

Ghirly · 26/04/2014 19:21

Ithaka I'm so so sorry for your loss.

Your experience of the justice system seems to be similar to that of my friend. I completely agree in your opinion that the system weighs heavily on the side of the accused. It is not right.

OP posts:

Joylin · 26/04/2014 19:43

Well how do you want the system to change. Guilty until proven innocent? Throw them in prison when proven innocent just to be on the safe side? Or just get rid of trials altogether and imprison anybody who has an allegation or suspicion against them?

TeacupDrama · 26/04/2014 20:57

Ithink not proven could offer victim more comfort, that the jury thought the accused was not " not guilty/ innocent" but whether lack of corroboration or extra evidence it was not beyond reasonable doubt so it suggests to victim that they were believed but just not enough evidence to be sure while not guilty does rather imply that the evidence was not that credible

TeacupDrama · 26/04/2014 20:58

not proven would turn to not guilty rther than guilty so 2 verdicts would not really help victims it might be better for the accused as there is a taint with not proven

ImAThrillseekerBunny · 26/04/2014 21:17

The three way split in the Scottish system does have one advantage for some defendants in that a Not Guilty verdict in Scotland has a real force that it doesn't in England/Wales Down here it only ever means that they couldn't prove it, up there it has more force that the jury genuinely thought the defendant innocent.

The classic double trial was OJ Simpson, who was unanimously found guilty of causing the wrongful deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown by a civil jury, but found not guilty in the criminal trial. A Not Proven verdict if ever I saw it.

MairyHoles · 26/04/2014 22:18

Firstly, I am so sorry for your loss.

As regards the not proven verdict, I have to say I think it serves a useful purpose. Although it has the same effect as a not guilty verdict, it does have a different meaning. As others have said, the accused cannot claim to be not guilty of the crime, they can only claim that it could not be proven in court beyond a certain level. Although I do not completely agree that a person who is freed should live with the stigma of a not proven verdict, maybe to a certain degree it would be the only power a jury has to convey that they actually believe that the accused has been involved in the crime in some way. It is a quirk of the Scottish system but I do believe a not guilty verdict would be worse for the victim or family of the victim, if the not proven verdict wasn't an option.

From an outside perspective it would appear that this is a better verdict than not guilty, but I can't begin to imagine how you must feel that the accused will not serve any punishment.

Louise1956 · 27/04/2014 16:56

I think actually it is quite a good compromise. I can quite understand why, especially when a serious crime is involved, a jury might be comfortable with a Not Proven' verdict, rather than condeming someone to a long term of imprisonment without sufficient evidence.

Andrewofgg · 27/04/2014 17:02

Louise1956 That's not the choice. If there isn't sufficient evidence it's Not Guilty in England, as it would be in Scotland if Not Proven were abolished.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread