|
Allegations of Abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 7 - Further Reaction to
Not Guilty Verdict |
|
|
The "not guilty"
verdicts in the recent trial of Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum
reveal the difficulties the public faces in interpreting criminal trial
outcomes. A verdict of "not guilty" is not a verdict of innocence. Indeed the term "not
guilty" itself is not a correct use of the English language. A verdict
of not guilty means that the jury does not find the accused
"guilty". It does not mean that the jury finds the accused
"not guilty". An acquittal is a non-verdict. It covers three
logical possibilities: that the accused is innocent, that the outcome is
inconclusive, or that the accused is guilty "on the balance of
probability" but not "beyond reasonable doubt". This is an age-old problem central
to the scientific method of knowledge acquisition. The best a forensic
scientist can do is to disprove a hypothesis (such as the hypothesis of
innocence), beyond reasonable doubt. In many cases, such disproof is
extremely difficult. That means for example in economics and other social
sciences we continue to treat a number of hypotheses that are most likely
false as if they were true. The science of statistics attempts
to assign probabilities to verdicts. Hence a popular standard of proof
"beyond reasonable doubt" might mean that, for every 100 guilty
verdicts, 99 accused persons really are guilty and that only one in reality
is innocent. A different standard of proof
"on the balance of probability" is used to gain protection orders
necessary to evict people accused of domestic violence from their homes. This
may mean that, out of 100 persons with protection orders granted against
them, 90 really were a danger to their families and 10 were not a danger. In
this case great weight is given to the safety of children in an allegedly
violent household, at some cost to the rights of the accused. Likewise, the
decision whether to fire an accused person from their job arguably requires a
different standard of proof than does the decision by a jury whether to
convict. In the case of the courts, the
myth we most commonly subscribe to is that an acquitted person has been
cleared of wrong-doing, and should be regarded as innocent, despite no
finding of innocence by a judge or jury. That is an unreasonable expectation
to place on the public. A popular form of criminal defence
in In Our juries should be asked to
deliberate on an accused person's innocence as well as on their guilt. The
reporting procedure could be as follows. The judge would ask the jury if the
accused has been found guilty of the charge. The foreman of the jury would
simply say "yes" or "no". If the answer is
"no", then the judge would ask if the accused has been found
innocent of the charge. Once again, the answer would be "yes" or
"no". Finally, in the event of another "no" answer, the
jury should be asked if they believe that the accused is "probably
guilty". A person who is found
"probably guilty" will suffer no formal retribution such as
imprisonment, but will face a degree of social opprobrium. More importantly,
to be found to be innocent will free accused persons of the public perception
that they only "got off" because they had a "clever
lawyer". By reporting verdicts in this way,
there will be more onus on defence lawyers to attempt to establish the
innocence of their clients, and more accused will choose to testify rather
than relying on their barristers to make a case based on doubt. This
procedure would place more emphasis on the finding of the truth. And less
emphasis would be placed on the trial as a contest with a winner and a loser. One final benefit would be that
the public understanding of many wider issues would be enhanced. For example
the battles by war veterans who have been exposed to chemicals (such as Agent
Orange in the Vietnam War) would be understood more clearly. In many of these
cases, the war veterans' illnesses (and the genetic problems faced by their
children) may be shown to be caused by these chemicals "on the balance
of probability" though not "beyond reasonable doubt". Going back to Rickards, Shipton
and Schollum, decisions about the employment future of Rickards in particular
might be better informed if we knew whether in fact he was found by a jury to
be innocent. * Keith Rankin teaches economics
and statistics at the |
