SCOTLAND’S controversial not proven verdict should be retained because it does not affect the number of guilty verdicts and is not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Those are two of the conclusions of Dr Lee John Curley of Edinburgh Napier University following a research project on Scots law.
Curley told The Conversation: “For this experiment we recruited 128 participants, and each participant acted as a juror in two separate mock murder trials.
“In one trial, the jurors could give one of three verdicts: guilty, not guilty or not proven. In another, jurors could give one of two verdicts: guilty or not guilty. Participants were also asked to state the likelihood of the defendant’s guilt after each piece of evidence.”
The research concluded that jurors were “significantly less likely” to give a not guilty verdict in the three-verdict system compared with the two-verdict system. There were also fewer not guilty verdicts than not proven verdicts in the three-verdict system.
Curley said: “Interestingly, there were no significant differences in relation to the number of guilty verdicts given across each of system; similar results have been found by researchers in the past.
“So if there wasn’t a significant decrease in guilty verdicts across the systems, then neither was there a significant increase in obtaining the acquittal verdict. The results showed that jurors did not give significantly different estimates of guilt across each system.”
He added: “The jurors presumed the same level of innocence about defendants regardless of how many verdicts were available, thus confirming that the not proven verdict does not undermine the presumption of innocence principle.
“This means that the Scottish three-verdict system is in line with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Curley concluded by saying he “would recommend that the Scottish government retain the not proven verdict.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here