Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing?
Don't they become false accusers at that stage?
Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?
Don't they become false accusers at that stage?
Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?
"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."
In Common Law countries defendants in criminal proceedings are afforded a presumption of innocent. Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed.
(FYI, Scots law is not solely common law. Scots law is a hybrid civil and common law.)
> Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed.
The point the other poster was making is: being found Not Guilty or Not Proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial does not imply the accused was morally innocent.
Often juries may suspect the accused is morally guilty but feel there is insufficient evidence.
Jurors in the UK however are never allowed to talk about their deliberations. So we can't know their reasoning.
They aren't remotely the same.
I'd also point out that "his behaviour was not bad enough for him to be convicted of a crime" isn't exactly a ringing character endorsement. Especially when the Scottish Government messed up the prosecution, something they really shouldn't have been involved in.