@Havenstone There are options to hold several criminal trials in the first game. It appeared that the only options for the jurors during the trials were either GUILTY (conviction) or NOT GUILTY (acquittal). Admittedly the MC was never a juror in those trials but if it is not too much trouble in future trials, I would like the Choice for the MC to push for a second form of acquittal in the form of the NOT PROVEN verdict in the future. There are some NPCs that even though insufficient evidence exists for their conviction, those NPCs should never be labeled as innocent.
2 Likes
Being declaring not proven it is the cruel veredit ever. It was used in several cultures as a eternal punishment Blocking jobs and make a social for life punishment for the victim and the family eternal suspicion eternal shame that carry over to family. Roman right had the fair mercy of declare not proven innocent for that reason. Romans were ruthless, but same time created the fair system of ius that was far better and progressive many system even today. @idonotlikeusernames what is your opinion? I am a known Roman ius lover so maybe you are more neutral in that regard
4 Likes
Mara is right, the not proven verdict is a perpetual sword of Damocles above a person’s head, because it allows the state to charge them again, and again and again every time they think they might have a new “breakthrough”.
Even worse is that the court of public opinion tends to operate on the principle of “if there’s a lot of smoke there must be a fire somewhere”. Therefore for the news cycle and public opinion a verdict of “not proven” can be as good as a guilty verdict as a lot of the public thinks you might just have had an amoral attorney get you off on a technicality.
If you want harsh justice, or at least a justice system that really disproportionately favours the state it is better to invert the premise and make it “guilty until or unless proven innocent”, rather than resort to repeated “not proven” verdicts.
I have to say I’m with Mara here, the “not proven” verdict is utter judicial crap. It both wastes tax-payer resources and leaves people in perpetual, legal limbo. So it really is the worst of both worlds.
Again, if my mc in-game (mostly games 4 and 5, it seems when we might start wielding actual state power) wants the judicial system to reliably go his way then “guilty until proven innocent” is a more sound founding principle then “not proven” as at least with the hypothetical guilty until proven innocent he can hold up the handful of cases where by some miracle the defendants actually manage to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as proof that his new justice system works.
I do particularly like that the Romans, at least for Patricians had severe penalties for bringing false accusations. Of course if you don’t break the caste system the more progressive rules would still only apply to nobles, which my mc as a helot who is valued far less than most Roman slaves would naturally oppose too.
4 Likes
@poison_mara @idonotlikeusernames If I remember correctly, the two of you are both lawyers and so I defer to your professional expertise if you say that is the case. I was under the impression that the effect on reintroduction of charges was the same whether the verdict was “NOT GUILTY” or “NOT PROVEN”. As for effect on public opinion, that is up to the jury to decide. Who would vote “NOT GUILTY” over “NOT PROVEN” in Breden’s trial or the helot MC’s father’s trial? I do thank you both however for the perspectives of real lawyers and I appreciate you both bringing your expertise to bear.
1 Like
Declaration of not proven is illegal in most of modern systems due the terrible historical consequences it had and the proof chance They force you to proof you did not X then if you arent good enough for the messed system and you would be tainted and possible to be accused again and again. Then in medieval Spain being that would make you and your descendants considered not have a pure blood so no way enter a guild or do public services etc… That’s an eternal poverty condemn forever. It is best being declared guilty that not proven.
2 Likes
Hmmmm… i would think that in those trials, there were trials against Breden right ? 
And in those trials , the MC is the sole judge and jury , perhaps the executioner as well… since it was all based on the sole decision of one person, much like the decision of king or queen … in such case, it would be more sensible just to give a verdict of guilty or innocense to maintain functionality and morale within the organisation , the narrative was that we are leading a band of armed rebels… unity is very important especially we are in hostile territory , a verdict of not proven may cause confusion or further mistrust among our followers, worse is that it would undermine our creditability as we might be seen as someone who was indecission …
Well… in fantasy medieval theme, it is ambiguous regarding how reliable or effective of the “proofs” , since they could be easily over ride with a trial by honour …
Even with “proofs” of a guilty party, he/she can evoke a trial by honour via duel where the victor is declare innocent no matter what… similar with the case of the trial of guinevare , where Lancelot act as the queen’s champion against Sir Gawain to determine whether the queen was guity or not
Hence , in fantasy medieval theme, a verdict of Guilty or Innocense should be adequate
1 Like
@Eric_knight There was also the trial at the Fourth Harrowing if the MC saves the day and chooses to have a trial where a jury of Helot elders acquits some of the Alastors and the MC comments that the MC did not believe in their innocence but there was no one around to testify against them. That to me already sounds like a NOT PROVEN verdict. The trial of the bandit that tried to kill the MC (if the MC chooses to have the Moot deal with it) and of the helot MC’s father both were also done by juries not including the MC.
2 Likes
I think for the bandit who tried to kill me , i verdict him guilty but let him go for free… Alina killed him in an “accident” though
As for Breden, since i trust them won’t bear ill intention to me … i verdict Breden as Not guilty :-)
1 Like
Released for lack of evidence is categorically not the same as a verdict of “not proven”. In modern or simply more developed justice systems one can be let go for lack of evidence at any point in the investigation, though if formal charges have been filed they need to be dropped. The state dropping charges against you is not the same as a judicial verdict, by the court, of “not proven”. Though they might both prolong the legal limbo.
Both the system I work in and the one of most US states therefore allow the court to dismiss cases with prejudice which means the prosecution (or occasionally the plaintiff in civil suits) is barred from bringing the same charges against the defendant again.
Under Dutch law such a dismissal with prejudice by the courts does not technically count as a “verdict”, because the court has not done the customary review of evidence, witnesses, etc, etc. It does count as double jeopardy as the state can never indict the person or persons in question on the same charges, pertaining to the same alleged incident(s) ever again. Such dismissals are most often granted by the courts whenever the state fails to prosecute an offense within a reasonable timeframe of charging someone with it, though it is also granted when the charges are on prima facie without merit and the court judges the prosecution to be spurious or even malicious (which can be followed up with charges of malicious prosecution, but that is an entirely different topic).
The counterpart is of course a dismissal without prejudice, which simply means the court won’t allow the prosecution to proceed with their case, but where no serious time limits have yet been violated and they do not judge the charges to be spurious or evidence of malicious intent on the side of the prosecution.
The very fact that we even have dismissal with prejudice should cue you in on the fact that leaving people in legal limbo with such nonsense as repeated verdicts of “not proven” would be really, really bad.
A verdict of not proven, again, offers zero legal certainty whereas a case being dismissed with prejudice does.
The way I see it those out of town Alastors were released only for lack of evidence (well except for that one kid who might be as much of a pink unicorn of Simon and actually be an innocent Alastor), which is still not a “verdict” of “not proven”.
3 Likes
@idonotlikeusernames Thank you for explaining the distinction. I do wonder whether the verdict means something different in Scottish common law than Roman civil law since the articles I read seemed to indicate that the effect on reintroduction of charges was the same.
2 Likes
As Mara explained, historically verdicts of not proven meant exactly that the prosecution/state could keep tarring someone with the same brush, so to speak, over and over and over again, until it sticks sometime as “not proven” as a verdict has always been taken to mean exactly that and that did not bar the prosecution, or plaintiff in a civil suit from trying the same charges ad infinitum, if they wanted.
Even if that is true, it is at the very least a really inefficient, not to mention legally inelegant way to go about things, as it being a “verdict” would mean the court would first have to review all the evidence, witnesses etc, reasonably brought before it before ruling, which would drastically increase the time and costs it takes to get there, versus dismissing a certain case with prejudice. Obviously reviewing evidence you know prima facie to be spurious or malicious is a huge waste of time and effort, as is doing the same when you know you’re gonna have to dismiss the case because of breached, reasonable time limits or expired statutes of limitation.
I’ll look into what you’ve linked after X-mas. So I can possibly fine-tune this comment.
2 Likes
@idonotlikeusernames Then it might be something different in civil law compared to common law.
Here is the link to the Scottish Parliament report. In the interests of full disclosure, the report was one recommending abolishing the practice of NOT PROVEN verdicts. It does however state the following:
As things stand, three verdicts are available to a judge or jury in a criminal trial – guilty, not
guilty and not proven. In legal terms, the implications of a not proven verdict are the same as a
not guilty verdict in that the accused is acquitted.
Quite possibly.
Thank you @idonotlikeusernames and thank you for patience with my legal ignorance. I always appreciate your insights.
1 Like
In the only place in the world with “not proven,” (Scotland) it’s legally identical to not guilty. The problem is the prejudice; the verdict has come to mean “we think you did it, but there is nae enough evidence to convict you” and “not guilty and don’t do it again.” Accordingly, it carries the stigma of presumed guilt.
The latter’s kind of an inherent problem in a lot of cases, though. People just don’t let shit go when the presumption of innocence protects someone who’s been convicted by public opinion.
4 Likes
Well, yes, this prejudice and stigma attached to a verdict of “not proven” is exactly why it fell out of use both here and Spain, as Mara has already aptly highlighted. That Scotland still uses it, instead of not guilty (and even not guilty won’t help in certain incidences, such as being charged with pedophilia, for example) is highly worrying. They may have decreed it legally and technically “identical”, but your own comment proves that it is nothing of the sort in the court of public opinion.
In any case, you from Scotland, like Fairygodfeather @Ramidel ?
Needless to say not even my mc would be in favour of introducing verdicts of “not proven” into any new legal system we might get to devise in-game.
1 Like
The not proven is one of cruel systems humanity has devised. It tainted families with the suspicion during generations. That adding the fact in medieval was the accused the one who have to proof their innocence. Proof that you didn’t do anything could be really problematic in old times.
In Spain we ended with entire families during centuries being mistreated because four generations ago one member was not proven thief. They get nicknames and their family name was publicly ashamed for it. Some people just confess stuff clearly didn’t commit to safe family because if you are guilty normally in one generation the stuff gets forgotten as you have paid. A none proven was always in spot light . I could see that as my grand grand mother when I was a little kid told me stories saying Look the people of that house they are bad people because they were accused of steal a century ago… Even if was never declared guilty… People still remembered.
So no proven is directly torture
2 Likes
No, I’m as American as they come.
3 Likes
Regarding potential benefits of the NOT PROVEN verdict as mentioned in the Scottish Parliament report which still recommended removing that verdict.
The Scottish Parliament report that I linked earlier listed some of the pros and cons of the verdict. Since the cons have been mentioned, I’ll quote two of the things the report listed as potential pros of the verdict.
In addition, in relation to impact on victims, a response to the Scottish Government‟s
consultation suggested that use of the not proven verdict in sexual offence cases “conveys a
message to the complainer that notwithstanding the lack of conviction, she was not necessarily
disbelieved” (Campbell and Kennedy, p 3).
Positive reasons advanced for retaining the not proven verdict, as a third option, include the
argument that it can act as a safeguard against wrongful conviction. A response from the
Judges of the High Court of Justiciary to the Scottish Government‟s consultation noted:
7
“We recognise that, looked at in isolation, there are arguments for and against the
retention of the not proven verdict. Within the judiciary there are different views. Some of
our number consider that the verdict should be abolished while others wish to see it
retained. It is, on any view, a very well established verdict in Scottish criminal procedure.
Some judges consider that it provides a safeguard in cases where the jury are not satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty but are uncomfortable in returning a
verdict of not guilty. It provides a jury with an opportunity to return a nuanced verdict.
Others take the view that it is an unnecessary and illogical verdict. In their view, in a case
in which the Crown have failed to discharge the onus of proving guilt, the appropriate and
logical verdict of acquittal is not guilty.” (p 7)
Anyways, I apologize for temporarily derailing the thread into a discussion of Scottish law. I do not claim all of my ideas are good ideas. I’d like to think many of my ideas are somewhat unique, but some of those are uniquely bad. I did have to work to try to recall how many “legal” trials could occur in the first game and once the rebellion controls more territory, I presume even more such trials will occur.
@Havenstone If the rebellion runs into Breden again in a later game after Breden was bound (for those MCs so choosing) following the poisoning and the bonds were somehow cut, I hope the MC has the chance to hold a long-delayed trial.
Speaking of a trial, I wonder if there could be an option to hold a moot/apella to deal with a murderous Radmar.
2 Likes
I will love do With Evil Gandhi a trial by fire witch hunt style. As my main is totally fair trial except for traitors and heretics mage users so mob and burning mages is part of mara system for the rest totally roman legal system without the cruel punishment. I won’t loot of destroy people lives except those mages and the worst slavers after a trial.
1 Like
I really loved playing through Choice of Rebels and I can’t wait for the next book. The only mechanic I didn’t like was tying other potential RO to Breden’s gender because that kind of locks you into playing a bi character if you want to pursue the other options.
Has anyone tried changing it in their save file? I don’t have any experience with ChoiceScript but would it be as easy as changing “simon”:“Suzane” to “simon”:“Simon”
2 Likes