Talk:Not proven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Not proven is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
References to 'defendant' in this article are not really appropriate as under Scots law the person after being charged but before being convicted is known as the 'accused.' Likewise, the other party can be known as the 'complainer.' This differs from English law where it is the 'defendant' and 'complainant' respectively.
Contents |
[edit] not proven
In an unusual use of the not proven verdict, Senator Arlen Spector voted not proven in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, citing Scottish law. The verdict was unusal, because not proven is not a verdict available in United States criminal or civil law. Spector later wrote, "History will not say the president was not guilty, although he was entitled to acquittal because the charges were not proved at a Senate trial, but historians will reject William Jefferson Clinton's brazen contention that it was all Republican politicians and a right-wing conspiracy."
I wonder if this might be a suitable addition to the article? It's not clear to me, as the article is, after all, about Scottish law. On the other hand, this instance might be of wide interest outside of the UK. Michael Ward 19:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd happily go along with that, indeed the text you've used above would be fine (though I'd link 'Senate' and 'W.. J.. Clinton' personally) --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 19:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I trimmed the Specter quotation, thinking the reference was enough. The evidence from the Senate trial is ambiguous: Senator Specter announced both not proven and not guilty, and in remarks soon after he suggested that he had meant not proven but had also said not guilty just to keep Chief Justice Rehnquist from counting him "present." And I changed impeachment to impeachment trial, because the impeachment happened in the House of Representatives. I revised the rest of the article, too. (February 26, 2006.)
[edit] "Not Proven" in caps
I've changed references to verdicts from capital letters to lower-case, as there is no case (NPI) in grammar for the use of capitals. Chriscf 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not Guilty Vs. Innocent
"Some modern commentators have suggested that if a reduction in the number of possible verdicts is desired, it is the 'not guilty' verdict (in the sense of 'innocent') which should be discarded. This is based on the logic that if sufficient evidence exists to convict then 'guilty' is the appropriate verdict. If however insufficient or no evidence exists then the charge against the defendant can not be proved. Therefore the result should be 'not proven'. These are the only two logical and legal conclusions which can be drawn. To declare someone 'innocent' is a moral judgment, not a legal one..."
In legal terms "not guilty" and "innocent" are not synonymous. Not guilty means that the defendent has been judged to have not commited the crime whereas there is already the presumption of innocence until a defendent is found to be otherwise. This whole paragraph needs to be dropped.
Ironcorona 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yellow Smiley
Although the editors on this talk page are unlikely to engage in anything less than polite discussion, this Yellow Smiley will nonetheless serve as a reminder for any future editors who may occasionally be tempted to lapse. Courtesy of the Random Smiley Project.
User:Pedia-I/SmileyTalkPage1
[edit] Sources?
I have edited one sentence to include "citation needed", but I think to put them everywhere there is ambiguous language like "Some Historians" or people named without actual sources/citations to back them up would clutter the whole article with these edits. I believe this article should be reviewed and sources cited where necessary under WP:NOR and WP:CITE. I also suggest adding "Primarysources" to the top of the page. Wushupork 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quantum of evidence?
In the U.S. and British system, conviction requires proof of guilt by the quantum of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." I gather this is also the quantum required for a "proven" or "guilty" verdict in Scots law.
In the U.S. and Britain, anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires a "not guilty" verdict. In Scots law, this could lead to a "not guilty" or a "not proven" verdict.
What quantum of evidence divides "not guilty" from "not proven?" Does a quantum equal to or greater than a "preponderance of the evidence," but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" require a "not proven" verdict, while evidence less than a preponderance requires a "not guilty" verdict? Or is there a different quantum? Pirate Dan 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Piraten, you totally fail to understand the not proven verdict. The verdict is a statement of the facts and a not proven verdict is technically equivalent to not guilty. The real difference is that a not guilty verdict is a statement of the rights of a jury to judge the whole case, whilst a not proven verdict is the submission of the jury to confine its judgement only to the facts. The practical implication of not guilty is that it can be used in a wider range of circumstances. E.g. it can be applied when the verdict according to the facts would be "proven" but the jury feals justice requires a not guilty verdict, but usually it is brought in when a jury feals that a simple "not proven" verdict would be against natural justice and as such it is effectively a rebuke of the prosecution for bringing a case which was clearly not sustainable. Bugsy 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frequency
Are there any available data on the comparative frequency of Not Guilty and Not Proven, both currently and historically? Dynzmoar (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scot free
I have heard a number of times that the phrase "Scot free" relates to a not proven verdict. As those who get away with a crime are said to have "got off Scot free", as if they had been given a "not proven" verdict in a Scottish court. In general though most internet sources claim that the "scot" was in fact about an old tax system. Can anyone clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
