Proven and not proven: a potential alternative to the current Scottish verdict system

Lee John Curley*, James Munro, Jim Turner, Lara A. Frumkin, Elaine Jackson, Martin Lages

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The current Scottish verdict system includes three verdicts: ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’ and ‘not proven’. The Scottish Government are currently reviewing the utility of the not proven verdict. Proponents of the not proven verdict suggest that it directs jurors to their true role of determining whether the prosecution's case has, or has not, been ‘proven’. Reformists suggest a move to a system similar to England and Wales, with only guilty and not guilty verdicts. However, legal professionals have indicated a preference for an alternative system of proven and not proven. The aim of the current study was to test the effects of a proven and not proven system on verdicts given, when compared to alternative verdict systems (specifically, the current Scottish and Anglo-American verdict systems). 227 mock jurors watched a staged murder trial, filmed in a real-life courtroom, with legal professionals questioning witnesses and a judge giving legal direction. Jurors were significantly more likely to convict in a guilty and not guilty verdict system than either a proven and not proven or a guilty, not guilty and not proven verdict system. Future research should replicate this study with a focus on the impact of the not proven verdict in sexual offences.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)452-466
Number of pages15
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume40
Issue number3
Early online date22 Apr 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 May 2022

Keywords

  • juror decision making
  • jury reform
  • proven and not proven
  • Scottish legal system
  • three-verdict system

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Proven and not proven: a potential alternative to the current Scottish verdict system'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this