#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
Just had a quick glance at it and we actually have such a verdict in trials over here. It's called 'Not Proven' rather than 'Porbably Guilty' and it has always been pretty ocntroversial.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
[ QUOTE ]
Just had a quick glance at it and we actually have such a verdict in trials over here. It's called 'Not Proven' rather than 'Porbably Guilty' and it has always been pretty ocntroversial. [/ QUOTE ] Where is "over here"? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
Scotland.
Btw that terrible spelling was due to rushed typing rather than a poor grasp of the English language [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
I really liked this article. Great points, David! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
What about an innocent person being acquited, but labelled as "probably guilty"? While this is not as bad as a conviction, this label will surely make his life extremely difficult as if he was guilty. The stigma of this label (if public) could likely result in discrimination in employment, owning a home, even trying to have a relationship.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of setting a guilty person free, giving them a chance to do harm again. I would think that a "probably guilty" acquital would need to be classified, and from the public's point of view it would need to be considered a pure acquital. The acquited person should not have to disclose the qualification. The tracking device would really be just a deterant incase he was actually guilty. And of course any person with knowledge of "probably guilty" verdict would have to keep the verdict confidential or face jail time. Although I doubt a courtroom full of people, especially victim's friends/family could keep this confidential. So it seems that an innocent person would likely receive this label under your proposal. I am not sure how I feel about your proposal, there are pros and cons, but I seem to be more concerned about the cons I pointed out... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
Here's a link to a newspaper report on a court case involving the 'not proven' verdict.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=287052005 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
[ QUOTE ]
What about an innocent person being acquited, but labelled as "probably guilty"? While this is not as bad as a conviction, this label will surely make his life extremely difficult as if he was guilty. The stigma of this label (if public) could likely result in discrimination in employment, owning a home, even trying to have a relationship. [/ QUOTE ] we already have this in the US, they are called restraining orders and they are civil law so the defendant does not have as many rights. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
Most countries probably have a restraining order by some name or another.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
probably not
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sklansky\'s \'Probably Guilty\' article
what is going on in the world? is everyone high?
|
|
|