Criminal law and procedure in Scotland is different from that in the rest of the
Scottish Jurisprudence is different from the law in England. One of the main differences is the sentencing system.
In Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts, a)Not Guilty, b) Guilty, and c) Not proven
History
Under statute law there were historically two verdicts: guilty and not proven. At one point the facts in the case were evaluated and weighed up as as either "proven" or "not proven", with the latter was a statement by the court that the prosecution had presented insufficient evidence of proof and the person was then to be acquitted. A not proven verdict is the equivalent of not guilty in that it is an acquittal.
A jury in the 19th Century, rather than delivering the verdict as not proven, returned not guilty. Thus the three verdict system was born. Not guilty is a common law verdict.
Modern usage
In modern usage, the jury is stating the person was connected with the crime but there remains considerable doubt regarding the offender's innocence. The defendant is released without punishment or criminal record. It also provides protections from double jeopardy. The effect on public opinion can be quite different, however, as it suggests that the person is thought to be guilty but was released only because the prosecution had not gathered enough evidence. An example of this error can be found in nineteenth century Glasgow. Socialite Madeleine Smith is widely regarded as having been found guilty of murder. The case was not proven, but Smith is still popularly regarded as a convicted murderess.
Scottish Jurisprudence is different from the law in England. One of the main differences is the sentencing system.
In Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts, a)Not Guilty, b) Guilty, and c) Not proven
I have highlighted the main diffferences in the Scottish legal system, but the main focus of this thread is to think what Members think of the idea of the "Not Proven" verdict.
Extract only;
Criminal law and procedure in Scotland is different from that in the rest of theUnited Kingdom. The main distinction is that Scots criminal law is based principally on a common law tradition, whereas in many jurisdictions much of the criminal law is contained in statute. What this means in effect is that much of Scots criminal law relies for its authority on past decisions of the courts and on the writings of respected legal scholars
rather than on Acts of Parliament.
COMMON LAW
One of the notable characteristics of Scots criminal law is that it is based on whatis known as common law. This means that the definitions of crimes and offences arise from precedent (successive decisions of the superior criminal courts) or from the writings of highly respected legal commentators known as the institutional writers whose views are recorded authoritative status by the courts, legal scholars and the legal profession. Scots criminal law, however, is not entirely dependent on common law. Scotland has developed a mixed system of criminal law with an increasing number of crimes and offences appearing in the statute books. Some of these statutory crimes and offences are of considerable importance such as those relating to the use of illicit drugs. Many statutory offences are shared with England & Wales through UK wide legislation such as road traffic law and laws relating to issues such as environmental pollution. Nevertheless, many of the most serious crimes in Scotland, including murder,rape, robbery, assault and fraud as well as less serious crimes such as breach of the peace, are common law crimes.
Scots criminal law contrasts with the criminal law of many of the member states of the European Community and of most US states. In these countries, the criminal law is said to be codified. This means that the definitions of crimes and offences are set down in texts which are often referred to as codes. It is not unusual for a country to have several codes to cover the whole of its law (a criminal code, a penal code, a civil code, a commercial law code and so on)
. While Scots criminal law has never been codified, criminal procedure is largely contained in a single act of Parliament, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and is thereby effectively codified. The debate over whether to codify the substantive criminal law in Scotland has engaged legal scholars and practitioners for many years. While draft criminal codes have been produced by academics in recent years, as yet the Scottish Executive has shown no inclination towards codification. Proponents of codification argue that this would create greater certainty in the criminal law while those against argue that the common law offers more flexibility by allowing, for example, judges to construe old law in relation to new crimes and offences without the need for time consuming legislation.
Extract only;
Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, juries deciding criminal trials have three verdicts which they may return: guilty, not guilty and not proven.Not proven is often referred to as the Scottish Verdict or the Scotch Verdict.History
Under statute law there were historically two verdicts: guilty and not proven. At one point the facts in the case were evaluated and weighed up as as either "proven" or "not proven", with the latter was a statement by the court that the prosecution had presented insufficient evidence of proof and the person was then to be acquitted. A not proven verdict is the equivalent of not guilty in that it is an acquittal.
A jury in the 19th Century, rather than delivering the verdict as not proven, returned not guilty. Thus the three verdict system was born. Not guilty is a common law verdict.
Modern usage
In modern usage, the jury is stating the person was connected with the crime but there remains considerable doubt regarding the offender's innocence. The defendant is released without punishment or criminal record. It also provides protections from double jeopardy. The effect on public opinion can be quite different, however, as it suggests that the person is thought to be guilty but was released only because the prosecution had not gathered enough evidence. An example of this error can be found in nineteenth century Glasgow. Socialite Madeleine Smith is widely regarded as having been found guilty of murder. The case was not proven, but Smith is still popularly regarded as a convicted murderess.
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Double jeopardy (also called "autrefois acquit" meaning "already acquitted") is a procedural defense (and, in many countries such as the United States, Canada and India, a constitutional right) that forbids a defendant from being tried a second time for a crime, after having already been tried for the same crime. At common law a defendant can plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict; meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence previously.
What do you think of dispensing with the double jeopardy rule ?