quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Fred, can you shed some light on the Scots verdict of "Not Proven"? (It may be no longer in use.)

It still exists. Not only does it still exist but our then Home Secretary (minister of the interior) proposed in 2006 that it be introduced in England. He did however say that he wanted it as an option for the Court of Appeal rather than for an English jury.His thinking, interestingly, seems to have been that he did not like people whose convictions were overturned in the Court of Appeal claiming compensation for the time they were in jail As it stands, if the Court of Appeal allows the appeal then it normally acquits the appellant.(In some cases the law allows the ordering of a retrial)

In practice a 'not proven' verdict equates to an acquittal. The Scots liked to have a middle ground to permit them to indicate that they were not sure of guilt being proved but thought that there were some reasonable grounds for thinking the accused guilty. They have had this verdict since at least 1728. About one third of Scots jury trials result in a 'not proven' verdict.

The more important difference between the criminal and the civil trials is that the first can deprive the accused of his life or liberty, whereas the civil trial can only award monetary damages as penalty. Seems reason enough for a different standard of proof! IMHO.

The "Not Guilty/Not Sure" was what I thought it would be, Fred. Thanks. I like the concept, too.

But we are not required to respect everyone who has not been found guilty in criminal court. Sometimes we may not want to be around someone who has done something shameful.

If he did nothing but try to publish that disgusting book, he would be the sort of person ethical people would shun.

If we can refuse a 'street person', someone guilty of nothing but his lifestyle, access to a restaurant because of a dress code, then I hope a business has the freedom to reject a customer because he/she is morally offensive. I understand prostitutes are barred from some restaurants and drinking establishments, even though (in Canada) prostitution is not illegal.

There are plenty of places that would love to have him. The Mafia had its own restaurants, too, where they were treated like kings. Let him go where he will be lionized and adored.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
Seems reason enough for a different standard of proof! IMHO.

Proof is not subjective. You either have it or don't have it.

Ken says: "Proof is not subjective. You either have it or don't have it."

Now that's just silly. Every sensible person knows that there certainly are different standards for what we accept as 'proof'. The reason is there is no absolute proof.

But in cases where evidence is presented,

witnesses
- may lie
- may have misinterpreted what they saw
- may mis-remember what they saw
- may give excellent detailed and correct accounts of what they saw;

physical evidence
- may be misinterpreted by unskilled 'experts'
(that's why lie-detector evidence is no longer accepted; it requires more skill to interpret than the average department has on board)
- may have been corrupted in the lab
- may have been planted
- may have been correctly handled and interpreted, and may point straight at the accused.

The judge or jury may be stupid or inattentive; or may just want to go home early; or may have been bribed. But if they're competent and ethical, they will come to a decision as to whether in a criminal case the person is guilty, not beyond all doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt; but in a civil case, they can make a simpler decision: is it more likely the plaintiff has been wronged by the defendant? If so, find for the plaintiff.

So as has been clearly explained above by several posts there is a difference in the standard.

For criminal cases it is usually 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

For civil cases, in which usually only money is at stake, the standard is
- given two sides: for the plaintiff or not
that there must be more evidence on the plaintiff's side than on the defendent's side in order for the plaintiff to win.

This is called 'a preponderance of the evidence'.

preponderance: a superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength; a superiority or excess in number or quantity (MW)

Sorry I'm belaboring this, but I'm giving Kendor the benefit of the doubt, and think he just didn't get it so far; but of course I could be wrong. He may be guilty of block-headedness, and deliberately keep on flogging a dead horse.

I think as a general rule that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. OJ is a pretty special circumstance though.

Apparently the restaurant owner thought O.J. couldn't work hand in glove with him.

"Proof is not subjective. You either have it or don't have it." - Kendor

Man imprisoned for rape he didn't commit to get $5 million

HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- The Connecticut legislature voted unanimously Wednesday to give $5 million to a man imprisoned for more than 18 years for a rape he did not commit, then gave him a standing ovation.

Moved by James C. Tillman's humbleness and lack of bitterness, lawmakers said they hoped the money will let him live the rest of his life in relative comfort.

The bill passed 148-0 in the House and 33-0 in the Senate. It now heads to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who said she would be honored to sign it.

Tillman, who was 26 when he was arrested, was sentenced to 45 years in prison after being convicted of raping and beating a woman in Hartford in 1988. The victim identified him, but Tillman was exonerated last summer after DNA tests showed he could not have been the attacker. - CNN (Bold mine - DG)
*****************************************
Apparently, there's proof, and then there's Proof.

The restaurant owner wanted publicity, and thanks to OJ, he got it. Look at all the people that want to eat at his restaurant now, so I bet it brought him a lot more business. Maybe he should thank OJ for the big boost.

Anyway, the worst part about this is how can something this minute, make national news. This shouldn't have gone any farther than the restaurant. Just like with Clinton and MJ, it's the people that's keeping OJ popular.

"The victim identified him..."

There was a famous case where a man was identified as a bank robber by many of the witnesses; years later the 'real' robber confessed and the innocent man was released. They looked enough alike to be identical twins.

Justice is just the best we can do. But there is no absolute proof. That's why I voted against the death penalty: so there would be hope for those who were wrongfully convicted.

I don't remember enough about it to post a link, but saw something recently about a guy who was released after spending close to 30 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit - and current DNA evidence exhonerated him. The state that prosecuted him gave him several million in damages as an apology.

I agree that the OJ incident should never have even made the news - it seems that too many people are interested in this kind of junk, which is what keeps the media reporting it.

The number of trashy magazines on the racks goes to prove that. Can't stand that stuff myself