CXRAndy
Squire
With the smell and taint of guilty, just quite get there
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pross
Active Member
Why? It’s a very useful option.
icowden
Shaman
On the flip side if you are a victim and the defendant in the dock is not found guilty, not proven might make you feel better given that the peanut in the dock can't go around saying "see I was innocent all along".
briantrumpet
Guru
I'm guessing to bring it into line with most other judicial systems.
Pblakeney
Über Member
Not quite as I understand it.
Acquittal is for good while not proven can be retried as it was not proven either way.
briantrumpet
Guru
There are always going to be unhappy people where verdicts are concerned, and forcing the judge/jury to weigh the evidence to the extent they have to nail their colours to the mast one way or another (by removing the anodyne formulation completely) might be the least worst solution. Leaving every single not-guilty person with the 'not proven' label wouldn't seem justifiable in order to placate some victims of crimes, not least as the rubric 'beyond reasonable doubt' is predicated on the basis it's better to let someone off who might just be guilty but there are sufficient doubts, than to incarcerate someone who's not guilty.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Don't get your reasoning, if the defendant is in fact not guilty, why would the victim feel better?, wouldn't the victim want the real perpetrator found guilty, and punished, not some random person?
Last edited:
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Yaxley-Lennon claimed 3 million “patriots”. You ‘estimate one million.
Even the Mail, which is not exactly an unbiased source reports that a Crowd Safety Summit expert , using aerial photographs that it was more like 78000.
Pross
Active Member
I assume more in the cases where the defendant knows the person is guilty but there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I suspect there are a lot of ‘not guilty’ verdicts that come under that category especially in certain crimes like sexual offences or domestic violence. On the down side it can also result in a ‘no smoke without fire’ tag following an innocent person around.
icowden
Shaman
I'm sure there was a prominent case a little while back, where the person was found to have been not guilty of committing the crime but found guilty of the same in a civil court. I'm sure there was also a Politician who has found "not guilty" and lots of newspapers, satirist were pointing out that that is not the same as being proven innocent.
Dorset Boy
Regular
I thought mosr estimates were 100-150,000, and the Met put the figure in that bracket.
Certainly a long way from a 7 figure gathering!
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
True. There was the case, where a woman was murdered (Teesside) and accused found. not guilty. The Mother of the victim campaigned (and won) to have the Double Jeopardy Law changed/repealed. There was a recent TV program (ITV) about it. The murdered was subsequently re-tried and imprisoned. There are, no doubt arguments on both sides. I suppose it depends on how often the Police get the wrong man (or woman). Since the Police do not generally appear to have a fan base on here, perhaps, that may be a cause for concern, particularly if you happen to be the innocent victim.
glasgowcyclist
Veteran
Only in very limited circumstances, for example a subsequent confession by the accused.
Ian H
Squire
To be fair, most 'not guilty' verdicts are actually just not proven guilty: balance of probabilities and all that.
briantrumpet
Guru
Seems fair. And the fact that the Tories haven't been able to capitalise on this (without the hindrance of actually having to govern), while Reform has, underlines how hopeless they've been too.
