Has the time come to add GUILTY WITHOUT PROVE verdict to criminals, to speed up court time?

[Manuel2]

In some courts like in Scotland has a verdict of GUILTY BUT NOT PROVEN, is a verdict where you feel the person is guilty but the prosecution has not proven it.
You still go free but it is recorded, to warn people he or she is dangerous but got away with it.
I feel for people who have abused people or beat up their partner, this new verdict than just Gulty or Not Guilty could do a lot to save young lives and people's too.

Updates

+1 y

Here is something to think about-Many Criminals win in Criminal court but then get sued in Civil court looses. In a so call lesser proof Civil court found guilty. Like O J Simpson was found not guilty in Criminal court but guilty in Civil court. Think

Updates

+1 y

It is fumny why no women pr girls has made a point on this question. I feel as most or all women can see how it benefits women and children. But if a women is a fake caller, this can help her victims of men wrongly called rape or sexual assult. This verdict will prevent that.

[NamerOfStars]

No, the time has come for a joint US-England invasion of Scotland, to staple the Magna Carta and the Constitution to Nicola Sturgeon's head.

Due process is one of the three cornerstones of democracy, and if part of one of the foremost democracies (or functional democracies) on the planet has forgotten that, the mistake must be corrected before it spreads.

[richardcory]

I can't support that - its all to common for police to decide who they think is guilty - and they are often wrong.

What I am OK with is allowing past accusations to be included when someone is tried - sometimes there is a string of crimes without enough proof on any one, but when all added together it is enough

[inhua]

the time has already come. many guys like Donald Trump, Brett Kavanagah, Kobe Bryant, Andrew Tate and many more are already guilty despite there being no evidence of their guilt

[BCA6010]

Guilty without proof?

Uh, no I do not nor would I support that being a legitimate verdict under any circumstances. The reasons should be obvious.

[RavVid]

It undermines the essential premise that a person is innocent till proven guilty. It is inviting community punishment that in some cases could be severe.

[RavVid]

A civil court is just a balance of probabilities i. e. 51% percent likely whilst criminal is beyond reasonable doubt. Very different. Particularly if there is a capital punishment there needs to be a high standard of proof. I don't like criminals getting away with crimes either or getting very low sentences even less but I think it is necessary.

An alternative is to have two tiers in a criminal syatem a/ person A was murdered by person X and a 20 year sentence results and b/ person x most likely did murder person A and a/ two year sentence results. reflecting the lower standard

[disgustingweebtrash]

We should just scrap the rule of law and bring back vigilantism, it would be a more honest system in the way that the rule of law pretends to be innocent before proven guilty but we all know that most people assume guilt anyway.

[Manuel2]

Are you a Kick Ass hero now? The people's Batman?

[Anonymous]

No that sounds retarded, if someone was not proven guilty then they are not guilty.

[Manuel2]

Even if the person refuses to come to court to testfy

[Opinion Owner]

If they refuse then they automatically go to jail, what are you even saying?

[Manuel2]

It is clear you got away with a crime and fear this type of verdict

[Manuel2]

Why are you replying anonymous?