In scotchland, juries are allowed to return a verdict of "Not Proven"

This means, "Yes, we think the accused is probably gulty, but the prosecution have not convinced us beyond reasonable doubt, because they're weasly two-faced lawyers who are in it for the money, and besides we don't trust the police.".

We suggest that four verdicts should be available to juries:

1. Guilty- they did it. Get the hemp rope. Hang'em. Hang'em now. One of us knows how to do the special knot, and there's a handy lamp-post outside.

2. Not Proven - they probably did do it, but the prosecution haven't convinced us.

3. Not Guilty - they probably didn't do this, but they are almost certainly guilty of something (i.e. their eyes are too close together, they're black, they're lawyers, accountants or politicians, or they've been caught being irish in a public place during the hours of darkness)

4. Innocent - not only did they not do it, but the case should never have got this far in the first place, they have been falsely and even maliciously accused, and they should be paid substantial compensation confiscated from those responsible, who should then be taken round the back of the bike sheds for a good kicking.
-- 8th of 7, Apr 29 2016

So in a hung jury, the jurors were found guilty?
-- popbottle, Apr 29 2016


This idea represents quite a modest (33.3%) increase in the number of available verdicts. Could not something more ambitious have been conceived?
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 29 2016


[MaxwellBuchanan], are you asking for a List?
-- Vernon, Apr 30 2016


How about 'innocent but looks as guilty as hell'?
-- xenzag, Apr 30 2016


Combos are possible in the current system, at least in US. In a civil case, we found that the plaintiff was owed his money and awarded it. We also found that he went about things in a grabby and underhanded way, and awarded the entire amount back to the defendant as legal fees.
-- bungston, Apr 30 2016



random, halfbakery