Letters: It would make sense to ditch the not guilty verdict

In particular, I find her use of the phrase “wrongful acquittals” deeply disturbing. The rule followed by the criminal courts is that an accusation of committing a criminal offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a verdict of guilty can be justified.

If you, I or anyone else should come before the court, facing a criminal charge, and the prosecutor cannot eliminate all reasonable doubt of our guilt, we are entitled to the benefit of that doubt and to an acquittal.

If a jury is, say, 80% convinced of the accused’s guilt, the jury is duty-bound to acquit, because the remaining 20% is a reasonable doubt. That is not a “wrongful acquittal”, even though this high standard of proof will inevitably mean guilty people will sometimes go free. Perfection is unattainable and a choice must be made. As a society, the choice we have made is that acquitting the guilty is better than convicting the innocent.

It is true that it is somewhat anomalous to have two verdicts that both have the same outcome of acquittal, namely not guilty and not proven. It seems likely that a not-proven verdict is often used where the jury believes the accused to be guilty, but are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. That is certainly the public perception, though the difficulty of doing research on juries’ decision-making processes makes that impossible to prove.

I imagine that it is cold comfort to a complainer, when a verdict of not proven has been delivered, to think she has been believed to some extent but not believed quite enough. Equally, though, I cannot see how a verdict of not guilty could be any greater comfort.

However, that is the consequence of Ms Brindley’s argument, because a jury that is not quite convinced enough of the accused’s guilt should not convict. If the abolition of the not-proven verdict would lead to more convictions, then that is a consequence to be dreaded rather than welcomed, because it would mean that juries were convicting even when reasonable doubt was present.

That the three-verdict system is unique should give us pause, because it may suggest that there are improvements that could be made. Equally, though, uniqueness is not in itself an argument for change. It smacks too much of the Scottish cringe to say that, because we take a different approach from other countries, we must be the ones that are wrong and we must be brought into line with everyone else.

For all of its imperfections, our legal system is nothing to be ashamed of either, and bears comparison with any other. If, though, it is thought necessary to abolish one of the three verdicts in criminal trials, there is another option (one Ms Brindley described as “theoretically attractive”), and that is to abolish the not guilty verdict.

After all, if a jury thinks that the accused is probably guilty but is not satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt, how can it make sense for the jury to declare the accused not guilty?

Far better, surely, for the jury to answer the real question that is before it, namely whether guilt is proven or not proven. Really, the anomaly here is the existence of the not-guilty verdict, not the not-proven verdict.

Dr Craig Anderson
The Law School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

THE reason why people are not convicted of rape is because there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt. If the not-proven verdict is abolished, these people will be found not guilty. A two-possibility verdict does not reduce the burden of evidence necessary to secure a conviction. If anything the not proven option is unfair to the defendant as it leaves a question mark over them where the Crown’s case was inadequate to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I was interested to learn however that the two option verdict system whilst common is far from being the only system. Italy has five options!

Joan Savage
via thenational.scot