Hugh McLachlan is Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian University
TO alter aspects of the Scottish criminal justice system in order to increase the rate of convictions would be misguided. However, on other grounds, we should abandon the use of both the not proven verdict and, more importantly, straight majority verdicts.
Procedures and processes are often justifiable in terms of their inherent features and not solely or primarily by their outcomes. For instance, parliamentary democracy is justified on the grounds of the moral legitimacy which it is said to derive from the consent of those who are subject to it and other laudable inherent features rather than, say, the suggested superiority of its politicians and public policies as compared to those of other sorts of political systems.
Similarly, it is not the purpose of criminal courts to secure convictions but to give those who are accused of committing particular crimes fair and just trials. If the procedures and procedures of the courts are fair and just, we should accept them and their outcomes whatever they might happen to be.
For instance, there was a high rate of convictions in Scotland in the witchcraft trials of the 16th and 17th centuries. That was not in itself a sign that the courts were functioning well. Similarly, that there is a low rate of convictions in, for instance, rape cases is not in itself a sign that the courts are functioning badly.
Those who face criminal trials have a moral right to be tried fairly and justly. They should be presumed to be innocent of any charge that is brought against them unless and until their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt by appropriate legitimate evidence, processes and procedures.
In criminal trials which run their course, the accused are either acquitted or, if they are found guilty, not acquitted. Logically, there is no room for a distinction between a verdict of not guilty and not proven. To prevent confusion, ambiguity and a possible lingering slur on presumed innocent people, we should abolish.
There are 15 people on a jury in Scotland. A verdict of guilty can be given even if only eight of the 15 jury members consider that the accused person is guilty.
In many jurisdictions now and even more in the past, unanimous decisions were required of juries in order to secure a verdict of guilty.
Whether or not such an exacting standard is necessary, it is very strange to say that someone could have been shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be guilty of having committed a particular crime by the case presented in court even if seven out of 15 members of the jury were not convinced by it. If the doubt was not reasonable, why did so many members of the jury have it?
In England, there are 12 members of a jury in criminal trials and someone can be found guilty even if only 10 of them so decide. Whether or not ideal, this, surely, seems nearer to being fair and reasonable than the Scottish procedure.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel