Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 24, 2017, 11:27:44 AM
-
Have to say I think dear old Walter (Scott, not message board version) got it wrong and that in the case of Scots Law, it is Not Guilty that is the bastatd verdict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41372764
-
Have to say I think dear old Walter (Scott, not message board version) got it wrong and that in the case of Scots Law, it is Not Guilty that is the bastatd verdict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41372764
It would be interesting to find out what ''Our Walter'' thinks of the term Not proven......since there are many here who translate it as guilty of non existence.
-
Have to say I think dear old Walter (Scott, not message board version) got it wrong and that in the case of Scots Law, it is Not Guilty that is the bastatd verdict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41372764
Not proven is fittingly Scots and eminently sensible .one can almost hear a Scottish judge saying ''Aye ye can go free but dinna think for one minute we wouldnae put it past ye.''
-
Was not the distinction between Scots and English Law that in both jurisdictions the verdict "Not Guilty" was absolute, and no retrial was possible, so "Not Proven" enabled retrial?
This has now been changed in England to permit retrial following "Not Guilty".