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

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.

Rape Myths and Verdict Systems: What Is Influencing Conviction Rates in Rape Trials in Scotland?

The Scottish verdict system includes three verdicts: 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'not proven'. Politicians propose that the three-verdict system is partially to blame for the low conviction rate of rape, whereas research suggests that rape myths may be having a larger impact. To test the effects of varying verdict systems (guilty, not guilty and not proven; guilty and not guilty; a series of proven and not proven verdicts) and rape myths on juror verdicts. A total of 180 participants answered questions regarding their acceptance of rape myths using the Acceptance of Modern Myth and Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) scale. They then watched a staged rape trial filmed in a real courtroom and reached a verdict. Participants also provided longer-form answers on which thematical analysis was conducted. The main findings are as follows: (1) The special verdict system leads to a higher conviction rate than the other systems when rape myth acceptance is controlled for. (2) The higher the rape myth acceptance, the more favourably the accused was perceived and the less favourably the complainer was perceived.

Informing reform: The views of legal professionals on the unique aspects of Scottish Law.

The unique Scottish legal system stands apart from the better-known Anglo-American legal system, with variations relating to jury size (15 vs. 12), the number of verdicts available (3 vs. 2) and majority size (simple majority vs. unanimous). At present, only a handful of investigations have explored the effects of the Scottish 'not proven' verdict on jurors, and only a single study has explored the combined impact of the unique elements of the Scottish legal system on juror and jury decision making. The current study is the first to investigate the views of Scottish legal professionals on the three-verdict system, 15-person jury and simple majority verdict system. The aim of the study is to inform public and political debate, involve legal stakeholders in policy changes and decision making and compare legal professionals' views with findings from previously conducted juror studies. Seventy-eight legal professionals took part in an online survey which asked for ratings and open responses on their attitudes to the Scottish (a) three-verdict system, (b) 15-person jury and (c) simple majority system. The results highlighted strong positive attitudes towards the 'not proven' verdict (particularly in a binary-verdict system of proven and not proven), 15-person juries and both the simple and qualified majority verdict systems. There was minimal support for reform towards an Anglo-American system. Instead, the reforms preferred by the legal professionals would be to require a qualified majority of 12/15 jurors, and to use a binary-verdict system of proven and not proven.