Talk:Not proven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an unusual use of the not proven verdict, Senator Arlen Spector voted not proven in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, citing Scottish law. The verdict was unusal, because not proven is not a verdict available in United States criminal or civil law. Spector later wrote, "History will not say the president was not guilty, although he was entitled to acquittal because the charges were not proved at a Senate trial, but historians will reject William Jefferson Clinton's brazen contention that it was all Republican politicians and a right-wing conspiracy."

I wonder if this might be a suitable addition to the article? It's not clear to me, as the article is, after all, about Scottish law. On the other hand, this instance might be of wide interest outside of the UK. Michael Ward 19:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd happily go along with that, indeed the text you've used above would be fine (though I'd link 'Senate' and 'W.. J.. Clinton' personally) --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 19:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I trimmed the Specter quotation, thinking the reference was enough. The evidence from the Senate trial is ambiguous: Senator Specter announced both not proven and not guilty, and in remarks soon after he suggested that he had meant not proven but had also said not guilty just to keep Chief Justice Rehnquist from counting him "present." And I changed impeachment to impeachment trial, because the impeachment happened in the House of Representatives. I revised the rest of the article, too. (February 26, 2006.)

[edit] "Not Proven" in caps

I've changed references to verdicts from capital letters to lower-case, as there is no case (NPI) in grammar for the use of capitals. Chriscf 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Guilty Vs. Innocent

"Some modern commentators have suggested that if a reduction in the number of possible verdicts is desired, it is the 'not guilty' verdict (in the sense of 'innocent') which should be discarded. This is based on the logic that if sufficient evidence exists to convict then 'guilty' is the appropriate verdict. If however insufficient or no evidence exists then the charge against the defendant can not be proved. Therefore the result should be 'not proven'. These are the only two logical and legal conclusions which can be drawn. To declare someone 'innocent' is a moral judgment, not a legal one..."

In legal terms "not guilty" and "innocent" are not synonymous. Not guilty means that the defendent has been judged to have not commited the crime whereas there is already the presumption of innocence until a defendent is found to be otherwise. This whole paragraph needs to be dropped.

Ironcorona 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Smiley

Although the editors on this talk page are unlikely to engage in anything less than polite discussion, this Yellow Smiley will nonetheless serve as a reminder for any future editors who may occasionally be tempted to lapse. Courtesy of the Random Smiley Project.