Can anyone tell me how this would actually work?

USA law student does not quite get how the law in Scotland, which is unique in allowing three verdicts in criminal cases including a 鈥榥ot proven鈥?verdict.





HUH???Can anyone tell me how this would actually work?
It sounds like a very good system. ';Innocent'; means shown to be innocent, ';guilty'; means shown to be guilty, and ';not proven'; means neither was shown adequately. I hope that ';not proven'; gains their release.





Here in the US we have only two. One is shown to be guilty, the other is not shown to be guilty, or ';not guilty.'; No one needs to be shown innocent here. Not having enough evidence to definitely show guilt gains release here.Can anyone tell me how this would actually work?
Interesting Q and A's!





The others have better answers than mine, but I just want to say that I like the ';middle ground'; (lol: shades of grey) aspect of it. Reminds me of a ';no contest'; plea here in the states. Not admitting you did it, but choosing not to contest it either.
Hi Mary you are right we have a good system here and it is unique '


But the not pr-oven verdict is a bit of a problem as it leaves a stigma over the acquitted persons head ( Did he do it or did he not ?)
I do not know how this would work, but it does sound like a good idea! But again, how could it work?