Actually, Annette, if an individual has a "not proven" verdict rendered against them, the prosecution is precluded from seeking a later conviction in the matter.  So, double jeopardy attaches.

I agree that it's a way of telling the prosecution to get their act together -- which I hope happened prior to trial as well via the judge.  But at what expense to the victim of a horrible crime, such as rape?

Overall, I think it would be much too difficult to reform the Scottish criminal legal system by removing the 3rd verdict, simply because it's entwined with other constituent parts, such as the majority verdict (rather than unanimous) by a jury of 15 (I think). 

They're a complicated little two words.

I believe the connection to be indirect:  Since it only takes 8 of 15 to convict, thus being easier than if unanimity is required, the not proven verdict provides a secondary form of acquittal.  When the tally is taken, "not guilty" and "not proven" votes both act as votes for acquittal.  So it helps to balance the lower standard to convict by providing a lower standard to acquit.  Get rid of not proven alone, without other changes to the system, and suddenly it seems that one's chances of being convicted are raised.

I myself cannot stand the "not proven" verdict , my mother was killed in a car crash the man that commited the crime tried every way to get out of it from , "not remembering" to "i had a fit" invited doctors in to prove there was such a thing as having a fit and machines and tests that could not identify the problem , at the end to the trial it was all "not proven" , ...  later in small claims court my granda v him , he was found guilty and to be lieing through it all , even though this happened i still cannot take him back to court as a not proven verdict slams the door on any return to court, even though we have evidence this cannot go before a court again.
I would love to fight this verdict out of scottish law, but to fight it with two children and a job would be so hard.
I personally feel that the verdict brings no peace and no end to a hard journey, i cannot get over it a "not guilty" verdict would have brought more peace to me than this...
~Karen

what emerged in the claims court was that both him and his partner could not remember any of there story correctly making slip ups at every turn when questioned.
The more he made slip ups the more annoyed he got, then started to curse, his lawyers and doctors recognised this they appologised to my step father and told him to appologise to the rest of the family, from what i gathered they told him they would not represent him anymore as they left him in the middle of it all, the judge rueled in favor of my grandad.
No hard evidence unfortunantly but lawyers doctors and the judge noticed it was lies after lies.
The whole case could have been put more correctly to the jury in the high court if the prosicution had not thown away a part of the evidence, they told the family the evidence would stop it from getting to high court does anyone know why this was? I have never found out how a piece of evidence can stop a case going to high court, i did question the fiscal but it was never explained in plain english. The whole thing confused me from start to finish.

Contrary to what is often implied, the "Not guilty" verdict came back into Scots law in 1728 as result of a jury asserting its right to judge the justice of the case and not just the facts of the case.

In effect, the proven, not proven verdicts is a judgement on the defendant, whereas the "not guilty" is a judgement of the law.

It was first asserted in modern times in the trial for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore where the defendant had clearly killed the Earl. The individual facts being proven, a jury verdict of proven on each of the facts, would leave the judge free to find him guilty.

But, the jury knew the death to be an accident, and if they simply accepted their role was to judge the facts, this innocent defendant was going to hang.

We must remember that in 1670 at the trial of William Penn, the English jury had secured the right to return what is wrongly called a "perverse verdict", which is actually an assertion of an English jury's right to judge the whole case and refuse to implement unjust laws.

So, whether or not this ancient right actually existed, the Scottish jury was clearly influenced by the trial of William Penn and believe it also had the right to refuse to bring in an unjust verdict. So, to prevent this injustice the jury reasserted its "ancient right" to judge the whole case and returned the "Not guilty" verdict.

The difference between the 1728 "Not proven" and "Not guilty" verdict was not so much a judgement of the defendant, but a judgement of the state. According to the state he was guilty, the jury felt otherwise. To save this innocent man, the jury reasserted its ancient right not just to judge whether the facts were proven, but in a damning indictment on the legal system of that time, they reasserted their right to judge the justice of the law itself.

Though the "Not guilty" is a misused verdict in need of change, without it we are denying a fundamental democratic right of jurors to judge not only the facts put before them but also the justice of the law itself.

And, it is worth mentioning that in 508BC the Solon reforms to the Athenian jury were within a century followed by full democracy in Athens, and in 1775 we have the American war of independence, which was sparked off by the removal of trial by jury in the Gaspee trial.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."      [Thomas Jefferson]

There is an argument that, particularly with juries, a not proven option stops them feeling they have to come up with an all or nothing verdict. They may see guilty or not guilty as having to say he did it or he didn't. Not proven allows them to say, whatever our view of his guilt, the simple fact is that the crown have not proved that he is guilty which surely is important given that we are all innocent unless PROVEN guilty. A goofd judge/sheriff will always guide the jury as to what the three verdicts mean.

1. We the jury  find the defendant has been proven guilty

2. We the jury  find the defendant has not been proven guilty

3. In the name of justice we the jury dismiss the charges.

4. Unable to reach a verdict

Now, the only way for the jury to say: "Not ... Guilty", is to say: "Not proven guilty". I know it is just words, but juries see too much US TV, and want to say "not guilty" so why not let them say "not proven guilty" which sounds almost the same but sits better with Scots law.

Juries will naturally opt for the "Not proven guilty" verdict as the normal way of dismissing a charge. The third verdict no longer says anything about guilt or innocence, proven or not proven, it simply says that the jury agree that they can't with an honest conscience pass either of the other verdicts. The defendant is then released as if the trial had been dismissed by the judge.

Sorry Grumpy, I thought I made it clear. There would be no "Not guilty" verdict. Afterall we are all "Not guilty" until proven guilty. Perhaps the judge would say something like:

"Members of the Jury you must come decide on a verdict. First you should decide whether the case against the prosecution has been proven or not proven. If you think they have been proven guilty you should normally bring in the verdict 'proven guilty'. If the case as not been proven then you should normally bring in a verdict of 'not proven guilty'. If however you cannot agree on either verdict come bacn ........"

"Members of the jury, I understand you have been unable to agree to find the defendant 'Proven Guilty' or 'Not proven guilty'. You now need to be aware that you have a third possible verdict. If the problem you face is that as a jury your consciences do not allow you to pass either of the first two verdicts, then you are permitted to 'dismiss the case in the name of justice".  This is not a verdict to bring in lightly and if you do so you be sure that you all agree and that there are compelling reasons why this is the proper verdict.

There is a fourth possibility that you cannot agree on any verdict."