charles clarke calls for a not proven verdict

Comments

• Options

  Former Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

  April 2006

  Not proven = guilty but unable to demonstrate it in court.
  
  It could never work, and that verdict is just asking for discrimination against people who have such verdicts on their record. Either someone is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt (or on the balance of probability) or they are not. If not, then everyone should get the not proven verdict, or an acquittal as was.
  
  Surely it is a disincentive for the prosecution lawyers to be rigorous in their evidence?

  0
• Options

  Former Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

  April 2006

  Can you imagine the media stories which would follow a "not proven" verdict in a notorious case?

  0
• Options

  Former Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

  April 2006

  Its another small step, it will be on the balance of probabilities for most trials soon, then the defendant proving their innocence.

  0
• Options

  Former Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

  April 2006

  wheresmyplacebo wrote:

  yet another repressive move
  
  
  it's quite easy to secure a verdic as such i'd beleive ie just take the person to court for something and they get labelled with it...
  
  
  
  this already exists in scotland by the way, personally i see it as further destruction of peoples basic rights

  
  So, what happens to the "burden of proof" then?

  0
• Options

  Former Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

  April 2006

  Next they will be putting people on trial over an dover until they get the verdict they want...wait, they do that already too!

  0
• Options

  Former Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

  April 2006

  a similar thing has existed forever ...it's called putting the case on file.
  gives the old bill another five years to come up with more evidence.

  0