 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007proved / proven
Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: o I *proved* it. o I have *proven* it. o It has been *proven*. o It is *proven*. However, I often observe knowledgeable scientists using the following pattern instead: o I *proved* it. o I have *proved* it. o It has been *proved*. o It is *proved*. Which, if any, is preferable? >Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Which, if any, is preferable? Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no word "proven." Of course such claims are arguable, but back aways dictionaries didn't seem to approve of the word "proven" and preferred "proved." I once mentioned in this group that my thesis advisor once commented on my use of "proven." He remarked that he was taught not to use it--he graduated high school in the Thirties. However, today "proven" is well accepted as the past participle of "prove" and used as often, if not more, than "proved." > Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. > Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > accepted as the past participle of "prove" and used as often, if not more, > than "proved." I recall learning (no earlier than the mid-1980s, and possibly even later than that) that "proven" was really only correct in legal discourse, and that otherwise you had to use "proved". This advice might still appear in usage guides. But there's no question that "proven" is now the standard form in GenAmE, perhaps owing in part to the influence of courtroom dramas on TV.  SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. >> Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >question that "proven" is now the standard form in GenAmE, perhaps owing >in part to the influence of courtroom dramas on TV. There's also the influence of the adjectival "proven" meaning tried and tested -- e.g. "using proven techniques" -- where "proved" would be Dead Wrong in modern idiomatic English. SignatureArchie Valparaiso > Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. > Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no > word "proven." Of course such claims are arguable, but back aways > dictionaries didn't seem to approve of the word "proven" and preferred > "proved." Interesting, because I think most BrE speakers will think that "proven" (except as an adjective) has crept in from America. I rather like it. SignatureRob Bannister > > Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. > > Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Interesting, because I think most BrE speakers will think that "proven" > (except as an adjective) has crept in from America. I rather like it. In 1828, Noah Webster put only this remark into his American Dictionary: PROVEN, a word used by Socttish writers for proved. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> > Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. >> > Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > PROVEN, a word used by Socttish writers for proved. Yes, "not proven" is a Scottish legal verdict declaring that guilt has been neither proved nor disproved. CW Claude Weil wrote, in <kbg1r2d4av2l94ao5im8d82atu3jav8qfp@4ax.com> on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:02:47 +0100: > >> > Believe it or not, the "correct" answer lies in the age of the speaker. > >> > Way back when, it was taught in many American classrooms that there was no [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, "not proven" is a Scottish legal verdict declaring that guilt has > been neither proved nor disproved. ... but we think he did it. SignatureNick Spalding [...] > > Yes, "not proven" is a Scottish legal verdict declaring that guilt has > > been neither proved nor disproved. > > ... but we think he did it. And I'd be very interested to see how it stands up to a challenge on human rights grounds. I don't know how often such a verdict is pronounced in practice, but "Innocent until proved guilty" seems to me one of the foundation stones of a decent society, however infuriating the result can sometimes be. SignatureMike. > [...] > > > Yes, "not proven" is a Scottish legal verdict declaring that guilt has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one of the foundation stones of a decent society, however infuriating > the result can sometimes be. "Not proven" results in an acquittal. Even in Scotland, you can't have a judgment of conviction without a verdict of guilty. As for "innocent until proven [that's how I learned it, "proven"] guilty," that's a presumption going into the trial and might better be phrased "not guilty until proven guilty." "Innocent" is not a possible verdict in Anglo-American jurisprudence; the best anyone gets is "not guilty." "Not proven" is indeed a tidy way of saying "We're not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, but we're not sure he's innocent." It may not be as pretty as "not guilty," but it has the same consequences in a criminal trial as a "not guilty." Now, it may be that in civil cases the "not proven" verdict has some sort of effect that the "not guilty" doesn't, but I'd be hard-pressed to think one up. (No legal research on this one; sorry.) OJ was found not guilty in his criminal trial, but that did him no good in the civil one. Had there been a "not proven" available for OJ, and had the jury come up with that verdict, I don't think it would have made a lick of difference in the civil trial. Actually, Nick Spalding's paraphrase looks pretty close to what a "not proven" really means. SignatureBob Lieblich Not guilty (of whatever it is) > > [...] > > > > Yes, "not proven" is a Scottish legal verdict declaring that guilt has [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Actually, Nick Spalding's paraphrase looks pretty close to what a "not > proven" really means. Well, yes; and that's my queasy liberal reason for not liking it. I'm not considering the legal implications, but the wider ones. Certainly it's an acquittal, and I know "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent"; but I wouldn't like having the social stigma of a "not proven" verdict round my neck. SignatureMike. The Robert Lieblich entity posted thusly: >> [...] >> > > Yes, "not proven" is a Scottish legal verdict declaring that guilt has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >that's a presumption going into the trial and might better be phrased >"not guilty until proven guilty." We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the accused "guilty of 1st degree murder", "guilty of 2nd degree murder", or "guilty of manslaughter". He further stated that "not guilty" was "not an option". The lawyer for the accused wanted the judge to declare a mistrial, but he was denied. I see an appeal coming on, and am appalled that a judge would impose this restriction on a jury. On 20 Jan 2007, Oleg Lego wrote -snip- > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The lawyer for the accused wanted the judge to declare a > mistrial, but he was denied. I believe the jury does, though, have the right to tell the judge to go stuff himself and to return what's called a "perverse verdict". We had one of these a few years back with Clive Ponting (a 'secrets' trial rather than a murder), where the accused had absolutely no defence in law to the charge; the judge therefore instructed the jury that they had to find him guilty; but the jury returned a 'not guilty' verdict anyway. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > On 20 Jan 2007, Oleg Lego wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > jury that they had to find him guilty; but the jury returned a 'not > guilty' verdict anyway. British judges can instruct a jury to find somebody Not Guilty, but I'm not convinced it's possible for them to tell the jury to find a person Guilty. As you say, however, a person can admit to the action described but still be found Not Guilty by a jury which wants to send a message to the prosecuting authorities. And nobody at all is allowed to ask a jury what they talked about in the jury room. What would happen if somebody were murdered in a jury room during the deliberations? The police couldn't ask the members of the jury what had been said. SignatureDavid ===== [ ... ] > As you say, however, a person can admit to the action described but > still be found Not Guilty by a jury which wants to send a message to > the prosecuting authorities. And nobody at all is allowed to ask a > jury what they talked about in the jury room. What would happen if > somebody were murdered in a jury room during the deliberations? The > police couldn't ask the members of the jury what had been said. Man, I'm sure glad us Murricans fine-tuned the system of criminal justice we inherited from youse Brits. In most if not all American jurisdictions, jurors are free to discuss their deliberations with anyone once the verdict has been delivered and judgment rendered (though not before). Some of the OJ jurors, as I recall, sold their stories to the media for good bucks. In the District of Columbia a few years ago there was a spate of 11-1 hung juries (DC, like most places in the US, requires a unanimous verdict for either conviction or acquittal). Each time, the eleven had voted to convict, but one dissenter held out and could not be brought around. I've been told that some of those "deliberations" could be heard in the adjoining spaces. The District even considered for a while reducing the needed vote for a verdict to ten out of twelve (I was going to add "except in capital cases," but then I remembered that DC doesn't have the death penalty). What was interesting was the reasoning of the dissenters, usually along the lines of "Society has been so hard on the poor boy that we shouldn't judge him." As I recall, one TV reporter actually had the temerity to ask one of these crusaders for justice whether the "poor boy" hadn't been very hard on the victim and wasn't it her job to judge him. I don't remember the exact response, but it wasn't very helpful. Most of the miscreants were retried and convicted. There was a brief rash of proposed legislation to punish recalcitrant jurors, but it was probably unconstitutional (infringing on the right to trial by jury) and soon died off. For whatever reason, there haven't been many 11-1 verdicts in DC lately. It's probably cyclical. American judges can acquit a defendant without even bothering to go to a verdict, but they cannot order the jury to find a defendant guilty. SignatureBob Lieblich Glad he doesn't work the criminal side On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: >> On 20 Jan 2007, Oleg Lego wrote >> >> -snip- >> We had one of these a few years back with Clive Ponting (a >> 'secrets' trial rather than a murder), where the accused had [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but I'm not convinced it's possible for them to tell the jury to > find a person Guilty. Interestingly, that appears to be the case *now* -- but the principle was only established in 2005 (R vs Wang) -- http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050210/w ang-1.htm Prior to that, it certainly happened -- here's an account of a 2003 case where the judge did precisely that (it was the trial of the guy who decapitated Thatcher's statue); third paragraph down -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4589409-104770,00.html SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > > harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050210/w > ang-1.htm Reading that, it seems to me that the House of Lords clarified the position, rather than amending the process. SignatureDavid ===== On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Reading that, it seems to me that the House of Lords clarified > the position, rather than amending the process. ?? The Lords established a legal principle which patently hadn't been previously established, as the lower courts were doing precisely that which the Lords ruled against. In 2003, the guy in the Thatcher case had the judge direct to find guilty, and was found guilty. Two years later, in an unrelated case, the Lords deemed that process to be illegal. That, I submit to yonner, constitutes "amending the [existing] process". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > That, I submit to yonner, constitutes "amending the [existing] > process". I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if no similar case had previously been referred to the appeal courts, then the judges in question were applying the law as they understood it, but were wrong in their understanding. SignatureDavid ===== On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: >> On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote >>> harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: >>>> On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote >>>>> harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: >>>>> British judges can instruct a jury to find somebody Not >>>>> Guilty, but I'm not convinced it's possible for them to tell [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > in question were applying the law as they understood it, but > were wrong in their understanding. Oh, we agree entirely on that. But I'd classify that unchallenged- but-erroneous application of the law as constituting the "process" (including precedent and all that). It may just be semantics here, but I'd consider the Lords' clarification to constitute the "amending" of the process as it existed up to the date of the clarification, in order to bring it into line with what the Lords considered the law to be. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 20 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote >> harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >existed up to the date of the clarification, in order to bring it >into line with what the Lords considered the law to be. What their Lordships were doing was to discover that the previous process was a wrong process, and to point out the correct process. Now that isn't amending the former process; it's putting another process in its place. Without checking -- always risky -- I think that when appropriate, statutes also distinguish between acts to amend a previous statute, and acts to create a replacement. In interpreting the former, precedents arising under the previous act may be invoked, if the circumstances permit; but in interpreting the latter, judgments may explicitly state that decisions under the previous legislation must be ignored. The Wang judgment nowhere says it is correcting or adjusting the previous law. It simply concludes: "...there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty." SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! >harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I'm not convinced it's possible for them to tell the jury to find a >person Guilty. Under certain circumstances this is routine. My experience in Northern Ireland is that if the accused changes her plea from Not Guilty to Guilty once the trial has started the judge will instruct the foreperson of the jury to enter a formal verdict of Guilty on the relevant paperwork. This happened the only time I served on a jury. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >This happened the only time I served on a jury. The British system requires that once the accused has been formally "put in charge of the jury" there must be a verdict from that jury. There are two exceptions to the "no directed verdicts" rule, and in neither of them is the usual "guilty or not guilty?" question asked. On a change of plea the jury should be asked "Do you find the accused guilty, on his own confession?". Where the judge rules that the evidence is insufficient for a conviction it is "Do you find the accused not guilty, on His Honour's direction?" In either case, if the jury refuses to comply, it can be discharged, and the judge can order the appropriate verdict to be entered. Except in these cases, a jury verdict is definitive; there is no equivalent to the American practice of the judge refusing to accept a guilty verdict after it has been tendered. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" The HVS entity posted thusly: >On 20 Jan 2007, Oleg Lego wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I believe the jury does, though, have the right to tell the judge to >go stuff himself and to return what's called a "perverse verdict". I would hope so, but not being sufficiently trained in Canadian law, I really don't know. >We had one of these a few years back with Clive Ponting (a 'secrets' >trial rather than a murder), where the accused had absolutely no >defence in law to the charge; the judge therefore instructed the >jury that they had to find him guilty; but the jury returned a 'not >guilty' verdict anyway. Glad to hear it. My initial reaction to the judge's charge to the jury was "Then why bother with a trial?", or "Then call it a sentencing hearing instead of a trial." > The HVS entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > jury was "Then why bother with a trial?", or "Then call it a > sentencing hearing instead of a trial." As I understand it, the judge's instruction in this case was based on the accused's admission (or maybe boast: he is considered a hero by many locals, since his daughter had been introduced to heroin by the late boyfriend) that he had killed the victim. The appeal will be based on a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling that such an instruction is unconstitutional. Myself, I think the verdict was correct, and I expect that a new trial will result in a finding of guilt. The act may have been understandable, but it was, at the very least, manslaughter. Any leniency called for should be exercised when the sentence is imposed: another good reason to reject the legislation of minimum sentences. The CDB entity posted thusly: >> The HVS entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >leniency called for should be exercised when the sentence is imposed: >another good reason to reject the legislation of minimum sentences. I carefully refrained from mentioning the nature of the case, the support he received from the community, and what I thought the outcome should have been. I too, think the verdict was correct, and fully support the idea that murder of scum is still murder, and that any leniency should be expressed in sentencing. All that being said, I still found the judge's charge to the jury abhorrent. The rules of law are there for a purpose, and if they are not followed, we might as well chuck the system. I would go along with minimum sentencing, but only if the minimum sentence were in the nature of "pin a medal on the defendant". (snippety snip) > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I see an appeal coming on, and am appalled that a judge would impose > this restriction on a jury. My honorary law degree is based on the huge knowledge of criminal justice proceedings I've gained from watching the TV show Law and Order. There I've seen a judge set aside a jury's not guilty decision and direct a verdict of guilty, while giving the jury hell for not recognizing the force of the evidence. If a judge can do that even after the jury has spoken its collective mind, why shouldn't the judge direct a permissible set of verdicts in the first place? On a remotely related tangent, I'm reminded of the sometimes quoted remarks # It wouldn't be right to hang him without a fair trial, # so let's give him a fair trial and THEN hang him Is there a known single source for that, or is its origin lost in the mists of folklore? > (snippety snip) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > while giving the jury hell for not recognizing the force of > the evidence. Not exactly. An American judge cannot overrule a jury verdict of not guilty. Period. > If a judge can do that even after the jury has spoken its > collective mind, why shouldn't the judge direct a > permissible set of verdicts in the first place? The judge can preempt the jury by entering a judgment of not guilty (but not, to repeat, a judgment of guilty) without sending the case to the jury. Sometimes the judge sends the case to the jury anyway but overrules them if they come back with a conviction. Possibly the judge has thought about the case while the jury was deliberating and concluded that there was insufficient evidence of guilt. Or possibly the judge is trying to pass the buck, figuring that an acquittal will be unpopular and hoping the jury will take the heat. Needless to say, that just increases the heat if the jury convicts and the judge overrules them. SignatureBob Lieblich Don't do the crime if you can't do the time > > (snippety snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Not exactly. An American judge cannot overrule a jury verdict of not > guilty. Period. O.K., you've apparently watched Law and Order more than I have :), so I'll defer to your greater knowledge. On further thought, I think the judge's action that I inaccurately remembered was to reduce a jury's judgment from several million dollars to a few hundred thousand. (Can a jury declare a judgment, or should I have said juryment?) > > If a judge can do that even after the jury has spoken its > > collective mind, why shouldn't the judge direct a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that just increases the heat if the jury convicts and the judge > overrules them. [ ... ] > > Not exactly. An American judge cannot overrule a jury verdict of not > > guilty. Period. > > O.K., you've apparently watched Law and Order more than I > have :), so I'll defer to your greater knowledge. As I said before, a judge can render a judgment of not guilty without even sending the case to a jury, or he can overrule a verdict of guilty. But the judge cannot force a conviction. I do remember one Law and Order episode in which a judge overruled a guilty verdict, and there may have been more. > On further thought, I think the judge's action that I > inaccurately remembered was to reduce a jury's judgment from > several million dollars to a few hundred thousand. (Can a > jury declare a judgment, or should I have said juryment?) Juries "render" and what they render is a "verdict." The court enters judgment. After the verdict, there's still no judgment until the judge enters it. That's how a guilty verdict can result in a judgment of acquittal. What you seem to be talking about is a civil, not criminal, case. I can't say there's never been a civil trial in the entire history of Law and Order, but I can't remember one. Maybe it was another show -- perhaps The Practice or its successor Boston Legal. In the US, a judge can, as a general rule, overrule a jury verdict in either direction in a civil case, and in most jurisdictions a judge can reduce the dollar amount of a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff. About a year ago I participated in a civil case in which the judge entered a judgment for the defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiff's presentation of evidence. The judge ruled that the plaintiff had failed to put on a prima facie case -- i.e., to present enough evidence so that the jury, if it believed all the evidence, could render a verdict for the plaintiff. The judge held that there were several things the plaintiff had to prove to prevail and that there was no evidence at all as to one of those things. He thanked the jury and sent them home; they had sat through five weeks of the plaintiff's evidence and never heard from the defendant, let alone get the case to decide. The plaintiff appealed and got a reversal, and I'm scared to death the case will go back to trial before a new jury. The system has its inefficiencies. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich And the trial will be in Dayton, Ohio, yet [ ... ] > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the > accused "guilty of 1st degree murder", "guilty of 2nd degree murder", > or "guilty of manslaughter". He further stated that "not guilty" was > "not an option". No sane American judge would give such an instruction. It's an instant reversal on appeal. In most jurisdictions the judge is not permitted to comment on the evidence at all. I realize that this is very different from the system in the UK, and I don't know how far a judge there can go. > The lawyer for the accused wanted the judge to declare a mistrial, but > he was denied. > > I see an appeal coming on, and am appalled that a judge would impose > this restriction on a jury. As someone says down-thread, the jury can flout such an instruction -- but what are the chances of that? SignatureBob Lieblich Not guilty r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com had it: > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > very different from the system in the UK, and I don't know how far a > judge there can go. I think Oleg is in Canada. We don't have degrees of murder in the UK (although it was mooted about a month ago). I know a UK judge [*] but I don't run into him very often - I might try to remember to ask these questions if they are still current. Don will know, in any case. I'm sure that UK judges are not supposed to give any opinion which might sway the jury (subtle bias from the judge is reason for some appeals on grounds of "misdirection of the jury"). * He is the identical twin brother of a friend of mine (a GP). My friend was invited to the House of Lords for the installation ceremony of his brother. During the day people kept congratulating him on his appointment to the Bench. SignatureDavid ===== >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >very different from the system in the UK, and I don't know how far a >judge there can go. A very long way, but not so far as to *direct* a guilty verdict. He may say that it appears from the defendant's account that he has no defence to the charge, but unless the defendant formally changes his plea the verdict must be left to the jury, The time-honored phrase, once the judge has made his view clear, is "it's entirely a matter for you, members of the jury". SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >The Robert Lieblich entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >I see an appeal coming on, and am appalled that a judge would impose >this restriction on a jury. It's not quite the same thing, but coroners in England can restrict juries to a subset of their possible findings. The first inquest on the guy who was shot by the police when he was carrying a table leg was forced to return an open verdict when the coroner refused to allow them to consider unlawful killing. Full story at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley SignatureRobin Herts, England > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I see an appeal coming on, and am appalled that a judge would impose > this restriction on a jury. Hard to comment without knowing the facts of the case, but it seems to me possible that a situation can exist where there is no doubt that the defendant killed a person, but there is grave doubt about whether it was accidental or deliberate. Not guilty is not an option. SignatureRob Bannister robban@it.net.au had it: > > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > defendant killed a person, but there is grave doubt about whether it was > accidental or deliberate. Not guilty is not an option. But that's not what the jury are asked. They have to decide if the defendant is guilt of murder, of manslaughter, or not guilty. There are various defences to murder and manslaughter charges, even after you've admitted the killing. SignatureDavid ===== > > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I see an appeal coming on, and am appalled that a judge would impose > > this restriction on a jury. > Hard to comment without knowing the facts of the case, but it seems to > me possible that a situation can exist where there is no doubt that the > defendant killed a person, but there is grave doubt about whether it was > accidental or deliberate. Not guilty is not an option. If the killing was accidental, it may not be any sort of criminal offense. Suppose, as I am driving down the street, one of my car tires encounters a stone in the road that was left there a few minutes earlier by a powerful gust of wind. The tire blows, I lose control of the car, and the car hits a pedestrian, killing him. Who is to blame for this accident? You can argue that I should have taken better care of the tire or maintained better control of my vehicle. You can argue that the person from whose property the stone was blown should have made sure that powerful wind gusts would not blow the stone into the street. But as a practical matter, it may well be that the death was a pure accident for which no one can be held legally responsible. If the matter goes to trial, the jury is entitled to hear my evidence and decide for itself if the accidental death requires finding me guilty of anything. American law, as I've said before, requires the judge to allow the jury to entertain a verdict of not guilty. But even in those jurisdictions where the judge can ban such a verdict, it seems to me that one must at least address the issue of whether a given homicide was totally accidental if that defense is raised. I acknowledge that in the specific case discussed in the posts to which I am replying, it doesn't appear that a defense of accidental death would fly. SignatureBob Lieblich Who got a B-minus in criminal law > We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a > verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the > accused "guilty of 1st degree murder", "guilty of 2nd degree > murder", or "guilty of manslaughter". He further stated that "not > guilty" was "not an option". The rights and duties of a jury are not entirely obvious. I was shocked by a case last year where it was alleged that a crime had been committed in a public park, and some of the evidence depended on something about the layout of the park. (I've forgotten the actual details. It was probably something like whether someone would have had time to run from from _here_ to _there_ in a certain time.) A couple of the jurors went to the park to have a look for themselves. As a result, a mistrial was declared, and the jurors were found guilty of contempt of court. The point of law, as I understood it, was that jurors must base their judgment on what the attack and defence lawyers say in court - i.e. entirely on hearsay evidence - and must not let their judgments be swayed by facts. Similarly, I gather that judges are supposed to rely only on what they are told, and that it would be improper for them to look at the evidence. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a >> verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > only on what they are told, and that it would be improper for them to > look at the evidence. The jurors may have been discussing the trial outside the courtroom or jury room. That is a no-no. But also, all of the jurors must be presented with the same testimony and form their verdict on that same testimony and evidence presented in court. >>> We had a case here recently (yesterday, the jury returned with a >>> verdict), in which the judge told the jury that they were to find the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >presented with the same testimony and form their verdict on that same >testimony and evidence presented in court. Sometimes, in circumstances such as Peter described, the judge, lawyers and jury will be taken to the scene of the crime in England. A trial concerning a murder that happened near a barge on the river Lea near where I live was reported in my local paper last Friday. The judge et al made their muddy way to the banks of the Lea during last week's storms. SignatureRobin Herts, England >Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Which, if any, is preferable? I think this varies between the US and the UK. In the UK "proven" is an old form that is still in use, however, "proved" is used most frequently. "Proven" continues in use as an adjective. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >I think this varies between the US and the UK. > >In the UK "proven" is an old form that is still in use, however, >"proved" is used most frequently. "Proven" continues in use as an >adjective. I don't think it's an old form in BrE. It seems to come from Scots law (as in "not proven"), and more recently from AmE. David >> I think this varies between the US and the UK. >> >> In the UK "proven" is an old form that is still in use, however, >> "proved" is used most frequently. "Proven" continues in use as an >> adjective. > I don't think it's an old form in BrE. It seems to come from Scots > law (as in "not proven"), and more recently from AmE. My 1950s dictionary gives "proved" as the past participle, and notes "proven" as "Scots Law". Matthew Huntbach dcw wrote, in <1011@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk> on Thu, 18 Jan 07 14:42:20 GMT: > >I think this varies between the US and the UK. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think it's an old form in BrE. It seems to come from Scots > law (as in "not proven"), and more recently from AmE. My impression is that its recent use in BrE came from AmE via AdSpeak rather than real life. SignatureNick Spalding >dcw wrote, in <1011@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk> > on Thu, 18 Jan 07 14:42:20 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >My impression is that its recent use in BrE came from AmE via AdSpeak >rather than real life. I'm sure that's had a lot to do with it, although I'm fairly sure I can remember people saying things like "the negotiations have proven to be less straightforward than we expected" since WIWAL. SignatureArchie Valparaiso >Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Which, if any, is preferable? The second set. "Proven" belongs only in "not proven" as a verdict in a law court (the others being "guilty" and "not guilty"). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Which, if any, is preferable? Either seems to be acceptable. A similar situation exists with shown/showed. >> Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Either seems to be acceptable. A similar situation exists with shown/showed. For what it's worth, I'm inclined to use "proved" as the active past participle, and "proven" as the passive participle (and therefore, of course, also as the adjective). I have no authority other than intuition for this practice. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > > Previously, I'd always assumed the following usage pattern to be correct: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Either seems to be acceptable. A similar situation exists with shown/showed. I don't think that's a good example - 'shown' is usually preferred to 'showed' as the past participle, and only 'shown' looks right in a passive expression (e.g. 'It was shown to be true.'). However, the two forms are more interchangeable in some verbs e.g. mown/mowed, sewn/sewed, sown/sowed. (Sawn/sawed is another example, but I think it's Pondian - shotguns are 'sawed-off' in America but 'sawn-off' in Britain.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.