The Three-Verdict Problem
Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-41, Legal Theory (2024), 1-23
Legal Theory, 0[10.1017/S1352325224000090]
23 Pages Posted: 10 Oct 2024 Last revised: 25 Nov 2024
Date Written: October 07, 2024
Abstract
In Scotland, for hundreds of years, juries have chosen between three criminal verdicts: "guilty," "not guilty," and "not proven." The "not proven" verdict's legal meaning remains mysterious. In this article, I aim to describe and solve the problem. Applying modern ideas about standards of proof to the intellectual history of "not proven" yields eight plausible meanings for the verdict. With the extent of the problem in mind, I offer a solution. In the three-verdict system, jurors should deliver a "guilty" verdict when they believe the accused has committed the crime, and a "not guilty" verdict when they believe the accused has not committed the crime. The "not proven" verdict is for all other states of mind. Clarifying this question matters for determining whether the verdict's existence is just. It also offers some evidence for how the criminal standard of proof works in other legal systems.
Keywords: jurisprudence, evidence, standards of proof
JEL Classification: K41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation