Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
Instinctively, I would say that the removal of 'not proven' would probably lead to more not guilty verdicts, because presumably a conviction has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
I think one of the main motives is to help the rape conviction % clamber a little way off the floor?
Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
Instinctively, I would say that the removal of 'not proven' would probably lead to more not guilty verdicts, because presumably a conviction has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
I've always assumed that juries use "not proven" when they think the case has been made on the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt.
If they start returning guilty verdicts in such circumstances, that's a problem.
Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
Instinctively, I would say that the removal of 'not proven' would probably lead to more not guilty verdicts, because presumably a conviction has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
I think one of the main motives is to help the rape conviction % clamber a little way off the floor?
The only way that will happen, is if juries are abolished for rape trials.
Juries are really unwilling to send a man down for years, and scar him for life, without being convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence against him.
When large numbers of cases involve consumption of alcohol, and some sort of voluntary sexual conduct before the alleged assault, and sometimes afterwards too, that conviction rate will stay where it is.
@Haggis_UK Mark Rowley(Metropolitan Police Commissioner) takes no nonsense from 30p Lee Anderson
"You're making selective comments based on a partial understanding of the law... if people want to be personally offensive, then write it in newspapers, I'm not going to answer those questions"
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
Are drama, novels or news coverage ever convincingly accurate when dealing with anything you really know quite a lot about?
That odd feeling when national news covers stories in your local area...
Some of the good folk over on Rail Forums start jumping up and down whenever Mark 1 coaching stock features in a drama set 10 years before they were built.
"It's just an old train, ffs" doesn't seem to cut it.
Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
Instinctively, I would say that the removal of 'not proven' would probably lead to more not guilty verdicts, because presumably a conviction has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
I think one of the main motives is to help the rape conviction % clamber a little way off the floor?
It doesn't look to make any difference. When the bar for a guilty verdict is beyond reasonable doubt, not guilty and not proven are the same thing. The bigger issue I think is the requirement in Scotland for corroboration for witness evidence, but even here there doesn't seem to be a big difference between sentencing rates for the two countries as English jurors tend to be reluctant to convict only on uncorroborated witness evidence.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case. Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
For example, phosphate levels in the Thames have fallen to pre WWII levels from some staggering peaks in the 1960s.
The Don has gone from being functionally dead to having salmon spawning grounds.
There's a picture that appeared in the Sheffield Star of the river literally on fire in the 1970s, there being so much surface oil.
The nearest weir to me used to have foam 10 feet high, sometimes blowing on to the road bridge downstream.
We are definitely better than that now. That isn't to say there aren't problems, but they are nowhere near what they were.
Sewage pollution is bad, but having Mercury discharged directly into the River Mersey (also functionally dead at the time) was worse.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
So SKS gets leads Corbyn could only dream of, but those leads slip back a bit, and you say he is useless? Take a long hard look at yourself. It's getting boring now. No other leader could have done what SKS has done. There, I've said it.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
"blocked"...
Shameless.
We've done this before.
Absolutely shameless. Amazing you are going out to bat for this. You are normally a sensible poster.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
"blocked"...
Shameless.
We've done this before.
Absolutely shameless. Amazing you are going out to bat for this. You are normally a sensible poster.
I don't see why you can't tell the difference between something where the holder has already proved their identity and something where they haven't, even if they look pretty similar.
Bringing GB in line with NI on this is well overdue, I've wanted it long before the Electoral Commission recommended it. I'll be appalled if this is dropped - it's an essential part of improving our voting system. Doing something about postal voting needs to be next but if the people who dislike this change for partisan reasons prevail, then that will never happen.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
"blocked"...
Shameless.
We've done this before.
Absolutely shameless. Amazing you are going out to bat for this. You are normally a sensible poster.
I don't see why you can't tell the difference between something where the holder has already proved their identity and something where they haven't, even if they look pretty similar.
Bringing GB in line with NI on this is well overdue, I've wanted it long before the Electoral Commission recommended it. I'll be appalled if this is dropped - it's an essential part of improving our voting system. Doing something about postal voting needs to be next but if the people who dislike this change for partisan reasons prevail, then that will never happen.
Doing something about postal voting needed to be first, not next.
It is ludicrous to clamp down on a crime that is not committed and to ignore one that is committed regularly.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
"blocked"...
Shameless.
We've done this before.
Absolutely shameless. Amazing you are going out to bat for this. You are normally a sensible poster.
I don't see why you can't tell the difference between something where the holder has already proved their identity and something where they haven't, even if they look pretty similar.
Bringing GB in line with NI on this is well overdue, I've wanted it long before the Electoral Commission recommended it. I'll be appalled if this is dropped - it's an essential part of improving our voting system. Doing something about postal voting needs to be next but if the people who dislike this change for partisan reasons prevail, then that will never happen.
Doing something about postal voting needed to be first, not next.
It is ludicrous to clamp down on a crime that is not committed and to ignore one that is committed regularly.
That would have been preferable - better would have been to do both at the same time.
Conservative Central Office provided leaflets for Norfolk saying that ID not required on the 4th May locals.
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
We can only hope. What an absolutely shameless attempt to game the system this policy is. Perhaps the Tories have sniffed the oncoming optics when people are blocked from voting.
"blocked"...
Shameless.
How many fecking times. The senior one needs proof of ID to obtain in the first place the younger one does not.
Offtopic, a totally fascinating piece about Fox News, with alums Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly, discussing the departure of Tucker Carlson and the future of the channel
First quote of note: O’Reilly: Trump would not have been president without the Fox News channel Beck: Agreed O’Reilly: And now that’s gone. He doesn’t have that advantage for the upcoming election. That’s the big story here.
I think the big story is that news networks can no longer lie and lie with impunity. There is a price to pay and it’s expensive.
Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
Instinctively, I would say that the removal of 'not proven' would probably lead to more not guilty verdicts, because presumably a conviction has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
I think one of the main motives is to help the rape conviction % clamber a little way off the floor?
Ahem. Currently 9/12. Probably not going to improve this week though.
Comments
Pillocks - or the first to confirm that the idea will be suspended?
If they start returning guilty verdicts in such circumstances, that's a problem.
Juries are really unwilling to send a man down for years, and scar him for life, without being convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence against him.
When large numbers of cases involve consumption of alcohol, and some sort of voluntary sexual conduct before the alleged assault, and sometimes afterwards too, that conviction rate will stay where it is.
Mark Rowley(Metropolitan Police Commissioner) takes no nonsense from 30p Lee Anderson
"You're making selective comments based on a partial understanding of the law... if people want to be personally offensive, then write it in newspapers, I'm not going to answer those questions"
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1651154689587572736
"It's just an old train, ffs" doesn't seem to cut it.
The nearest weir to me used to have foam 10 feet high, sometimes blowing on to the road bridge downstream.
We are definitely better than that now. That isn't to say there aren't problems, but they are nowhere near what they were.
Sewage pollution is bad, but having Mercury discharged directly into the River Mersey (also functionally dead at the time) was worse.
Shameless.
Agreed
https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202210_GBN_W42_full.pdf#subsection*.12
Bringing GB in line with NI on this is well overdue, I've wanted it long before the Electoral Commission recommended it. I'll be appalled if this is dropped - it's an essential part of improving our voting system. Doing something about postal voting needs to be next but if the people who dislike this change for partisan reasons prevail, then that will never happen.
It is ludicrous to clamp down on a crime that is not committed and to ignore one that is committed regularly.
That's still not a reason not to do this.