RATHER than abolish not proven (“It is difficult to prove the case against the Scottish verdict”, The Herald, November 14), I propose that guilty and not guilty be abolished and that there be two verdicts in future, proven and not proven.
A verdict of not guilty does not mean that the accused is innocent, but means not proven.
William Durward,
20 South Erskine Park, Bearsden.
PERHAPS the not proven verdict has outlived its usefulness, having come to light when communities were more closely knit than they are today so that everyone knew everyone else in the community, more or less.
In its heyday, it carried a taint and suspicion, leaving the recipient of such a verdict free but carrying an aura of shame in that there was no smoke without fire, though the vital conclusive piece of evidence was missing to secure a guilty verdict.
Not guilty is considered an unqualified verdict with no reservations where not proven is a qualified verdict with reservations.
Nowadays in our looser and so much more anonymous society, that aura of shame does not linger around the shoulders of the person who has been set free with this verdict to walk the streets.
However, if the not proven verdict disappears, the jury will be left with guilty or not guilty as its two options. That may well lead to more acquittals, leaving the freed accused without any taint of suspicion attached to their names.
It's a tough call to interfere with a tried and tested system which has served us so well in this country for so long.
Denis Bruce,
5 Rannoch Gardens, Bishopbriggs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel