Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts

April 30, 2023 5:00 AM

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts. [BBC]
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries (21 comments total)

I think the final part of the article, which mentions the disproportionate number of rape trials which currently end with a “not proven” verdict, is particularly germain in the decision to change the law. The general public’s take on such a verdict- “we think they did it but we can’t prove it” - is a particularly useless outcome, for both parties, in such cases.
posted by rongorongo at 5:26 AM on April 30, 2023 [6 favorites]

/r/askhistorians has a fascinating breakdown on this peculiarity of Scottish Law.
posted by gwydapllew at 6:02 AM on April 30, 2023

Just a couple of weeks ago I was reading a book about Madeleine Smith, whose "not proven" verdict caused an uproar in the middle of the 19th century. It looks, to a modern viewer allowed to view all the evidence, as if there was a strong case that she poisoned her former lover. But in her defense, that man was what we would now call a stalker and a blackmailer, and her family would have thrown her into the street. As it was, she led a long, quiet, but interesting and largely murder-free life.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:08 AM on April 30, 2023 [6 favorites]

The general public’s take on such a verdict- “we think they did it but we can’t prove it” - is a particularly useless outcome, for both parties, in such cases.

Civil trials have a far lesser burden of proof than criminal trials.

Maybe we could also use it to reemphasize it's the DA's responsibility to bring a case to court that they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt instead of blaming defense attorneys for "getting someone off on a technicality" that permeates popular thought about the justice system.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:41 AM on April 30, 2023 [4 favorites]

This appears to be Scotland doing this for itself and for reasons it thinks are sufficient, and not Westminster fucking them over?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:15 AM on April 30, 2023

USian here. Last time I was summoned for jury duty, it was for a manslaughter trial. Made it through early selection, and we were all there in the courtroom while the judge and the attorneys laid out the basics of the case and how jury selection would work. The prosecutor went on for a bit, and closed with "Ultimately, it's the job of the defense to prove their client's innocence." Nobody said a thing. I raised my hand, spoke up and said, "No, it's the prosecution's job to prove guilt beyond resonable doubt." The prosecutor instantly moved to have me dismissed from jury service, and that was that.

That bothered me for a long time, that the fate of the accused in our courts may well be decided by people who haven't got a damned clue how it's supposed to work. And then I read articles like this, and how so often, juries in sexual assault cases in particular have very firm biases going into it, and... maybe getting rid of juries isn't such a bad thing.
posted by xedrik at 7:22 AM on April 30, 2023 [51 favorites]

The lede, which says the law is to be scrapped, includes a link saying this is just a bill, not a new law:

The controversial not proven verdict is to be scrapped in Scottish courts as part of sweeping reforms to the country's justice system.

And in spite of the headline, halfway down the article they say that this is a bill, a proposed law:

The proposal to abolish the verdict is contained in a new bill published by the Scottish government which would see the most radical shake-up of the country's justice system in decades if it is passed.

I'm confused as to whether this is a matter concerning British English, or if an earlier article wasn't updated, or if whoever wrote the article is simply sloppy.
posted by Umami Dearest at 7:31 AM on April 30, 2023 [1 favorite]

Umami Dearest: the Bill will become Law once Parliament (Holyrood, not Westminster) passes it as an Act of Parliament. That's how the system works here.
posted by cstross at 7:44 AM on April 30, 2023 [4 favorites]

/r/askhistorians has a fascinating breakdown on this peculiarity of Scottish Law.

Link to that discussion. It reminds me of the concept of jury nullification and how it has sometimes been used in the US.
posted by Nelson at 7:45 AM on April 30, 2023 [5 favorites]

Although I'm not Scottish so my opinion doesn't really count, I'm torn on whether a judge alone is better than a jury. On the one hand, judges can absolutely be as biased as jurors, with no risk of being balanced out by 11 other people. On the other hand, as xedrik points out, juries often don't understand the law sufficiently and are vulnerable to being misled with improper instruction.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:51 AM on April 30, 2023 [7 favorites]

Metafilter: interesting and largely murder-free
posted by fedward at 8:38 AM on April 30, 2023 [9 favorites]

the Bill will become Law

cstross: So it's a done deal then? I guess from the article's wording ("which would see the most radical shake-up") I assumed it was still not clear whether it would pass.
posted by Umami Dearest at 8:43 AM on April 30, 2023

It's not a done deal, but a government bill is very likely to pass. That's why they say it is "to be" scrapped, rather than "has been" scrapped.

This appears to be Scotland doing this for itself and for reasons it thinks are sufficient, and not Westminster fucking them over?

Yes. Scots law has always been different and there are a surprisingly large number of minor discrepancies between Scots law and English law at any given point in time. Since devolution, it's unusual for Westminster to be even remotely interested.
posted by plonkee at 9:15 AM on April 30, 2023 [1 favorite]

Since devolution, it's unusual for Westminster to be even remotely interested.

With notably rare exceptions.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:18 AM on April 30, 2023 [11 favorites]

I'm torn on whether a judge alone is better than a jury.

My take is that if you truly got screwed by a jury, you still have a couple of swings at having a judge correct their misinterpretation of law in appeals. And while jury nullification has both good and bad aspects, I'd still prefer to keep the option for juries to balance out a corrupt/authoritarian judiciary.
posted by tavella at 9:27 AM on April 30, 2023 [2 favorites]

Nobody said a thing. I raised my hand, spoke up and said, "No, it's the prosecution's job to prove guilt beyond resonable doubt." The prosecutor instantly moved to have me dismissed from jury service, and that was that.

The fact that the judge didn't immediately shut that down shows how in the bag that judge is for cops and prosecutors.

It's an obscenity that permeates US courts in particular, even in the "socialist" LA area.
posted by tclark at 9:38 AM on April 30, 2023 [13 favorites]

The general public’s take on such a verdict- “we think they did it but we can’t prove it”
Which has also been translated as "Not Guilty And Don't Do It Again."
posted by dannyboybell at 9:49 AM on April 30, 2023 [6 favorites]

There's a joke about a man charged with stealing some sheep.

Jury: Not guilty and he has to return the sheep.

Judge: You can't make that verdict.

Jury: Alright, not guilty and he gets to KEEP the sheep.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:52 AM on April 30, 2023 [5 favorites]

Nobody said a thing. I raised my hand, spoke up

I know what you mean, but you're wrong. Somebody did say something. You spoke up.

Pay attention, everyone. This is what speaking up looks like. It can feel like nobody is saying a thing. But every single other person in that courtroom had the experience of someone spoke up.
posted by aniola at 11:48 AM on April 30, 2023 [28 favorites]

I didn't realize that in Scotland the jury was 15 people and you only needed 8 to agree to convict,
Now they want to change to 12 people and 8 voting to convict is enough.
I guess I was just used to Canada's and US 12 jurors needing to all agree on a verdict
posted by yyz at 1:19 PM on April 30, 2023

the DA's responsibility

DA is an unusual way to abbreviate Procurator Fiscal.
posted by ambrosen at 6:34 AM on May 1, 2023 [4 favorites]