Manslaughter conviction

[Jaggy Bunnet]

However, by the time they retire to consider their verdict they will have had the possible verdicts and the burden of proof required explained to them by the judge.

So why are there not an exactly equal amount of Not Proven and Not Guilty verdicts delivered? There is no distinction between them legally.

The fact that this is not the case suggests that jurors do NOT see them as being identical.

 

[Mojo]

So why are there not an exactly equal amount of Not Proven and Not Guilty verdicts delivered? There is no distinction between them legally.

The fact that this is not the case suggests that jurors do NOT see them as being identical.

I didn't suggest that the jury sees them as identical. I didn't suggest that they are the same verdict. I just stated that the result is identical: an acquittal.

As the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal just as much as a "not guilty" verdict is, it is unnecessary to have the third possible verdict.

The third verdict being "not proven" in addition to "guilty" and "not guilty."

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I didn't suggest that the jury sees them as identical. I didn't suggest that they are the same verdict. I just stated that the result is identical: an acquittal. The third verdict being "not proven" in addition to "guilty" and "not guilty."

But the juries job is NOT to decide on whether someone is guilty or not, they are there to decide if the charges have been proven.

It is pretty clear that under a three verdict system some jurors are unwilling to find people "not guilty" even where they believe the charge is not proven. What do people who are unwilling to make a finding of not guilty do if there is no "not proven" option? Convict?

Far better to make the verdicts match the juries role and avoid the moral issues around delivering a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[Mojo]

But the juries job is NOT to decide on whether someone is guilty or not, they are there to decide if the charges have been proven.

By deciding whether the charges have been proven, a jury is deciding whether the defendant is guilty.

It is pretty clear that under a three verdict system some jurors are unwilling to find people "not guilty" even where they believe the charge is not proven. What do people who are unwilling to make a finding of not guilty do if there is no "not proven" option? Convict?

If they convict after the judge has failed to adequately direct them, the defendant should be able to successfully appeal the conviction.

Far better to make the verdicts match the juries role and avoid the moral issues around delivering a "not guilty" verdict.

Possibly, but the jury will still be fully aware of the consequences of their decision as far as the defendant is concerned, whatever actual form of words is used to denote the decision.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If they convict after the judge has failed to adequately direct them, the defendant should be able to successfully appeal the conviction.

And if the judge has adequately directed them but the jury are not willing to declare someone they believe has committed the crime "not guilty" even if the proof is insufficient?

 

[Mojo]

And if the judge has adequately directed them but the jury are not willing to declare someone they believe has committed the crime "not guilty" even if the proof is insufficient?

If the jury are going to arrive at a perverse decision, there's not much that can be done about it whatever the wording used.

However, by the time they reach their decision they will have had the prosecution and defence cases explained to them in court. If, after that, they think the defendant did it, they have presumably taken the evidence into account.

And in any case, if they think the defendant did it, are they any more likely to give a "not proven" verdict, which will after all result in a complete acquittal?