Could Bury have avoided the death penalty had the Ripper not existed?

[Stacker]

There is logic to this:

The city of Dundee, where Bury was hung was known for a strong sentiment against Capital Punishment. It showed during Burys trial. In the UK at the time, juries had 3 different options when it came to people charged with murder.

Innocent
Guilty with Capital Punishment
Guilty with a recommendation for mercy

The 1st 2 options are basically self explanatory.
The last, however, was more complicated.
If selected, the Convicted would still face the possibility of Capital Punishment, but a review process would automatically be initiated in which authorities had the option of changing the sentence into simple imprisonment.

Burys jury initially picked that option, option 3.
Lord Young, the judge of the case was unhappy, and insisted that the jury continue debating the case until they could come to a different option, and they ended up picking option 2 after 10 more minutes.
As a result, Bury was executed by hanging.

Now 1 might wonder if Lord Young would have been less inclined to force the jury to reconsider had the Ripper not existed. I think it is quite possible that Lord Young had the thought of the Ripper in mind when he felt more inclined to get someone executed. He might not have been so determined to force the jury to pick a different option otherwise.

How do you feel about this situation?

[Harry D]

An interesting question, Stacker.

It's difficult to tell how much the Ripper murders influenced Bury's trial. Murder was a hangable offence, but the jury thought there was enough conflicting medical evidence to grant him clemency. Lord Young obviously differed and followed the letter of the law.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Didn’t the Scottish verdict of ‘not proven’ exist at that time? Maybe it came in later, I haven’t looked into it?

[Sam Flynn]

Didn’t the Scottish verdict of ‘not proven’ exist at that time? Maybe it came in later, I haven’t looked into it?

According to Wikipedia, the "not proven" verdict has been part of Scottish Law since the late 17th Century.

As an aside, a couple of years back I was involved with an initiative relating to courts in the UK, part of which involved my reading through the ins and outs of Scottish Law and the Offence Codes used in various IT systems. One particular offence in Scottish Law that stuck in the memory was that of being an "Incorrigible Rogue", which I thought was splendid

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Wikipedia, the "not proven" verdict has been part of Scottish Law since the late 17th Century.

As an aside, a couple of years back I was involved with an initiative relating to courts in the UK, part of which involved my reading through the ins and outs of Scottish Law and the Offence Codes used in various IT systems. One particular offence in Scottish Law that stuck in the memory was that of being an "Incorrigible Rogue", which I thought was splendid

Who would mind being called an ‘Incorrigible Rogue?’