Richard Ackland, writing his regular column in the SMH, raises an interesting issue on the determination by a jury whether a person, as it presntly exists, is "guilty" or "not guilty".
"What we need is a proper system of verdicts. The legal academic and former prosecutor Brett Dawson says the trouble with the "guilty" and "not guilty" formulation is that many people found "not guilty" are actually thought to be "guilty, but got off".
He proposes a new system: "Proved guilty, proved innocent and not proven."
"What we need is a proper system of verdicts. The legal academic and former prosecutor Brett Dawson says the trouble with the "guilty" and "not guilty" formulation is that many people found "not guilty" are actually thought to be "guilty, but got off".
He proposes a new system: "Proved guilty, proved innocent and not proven."
Comments