Plea bargains in the American court.

[MMI]

I'm with js207 when it comes to removing the double jeopardy rule (is that just for murder, or for other crimes too?). Ian's protest that the protection was only good for the guilty did resonate with me, however. If a guilty man is found not guilty for any reason, and then, somehow, his guilt is revealed, should he not be punished as he would have been had a guilty verdict been given? Of course he should ... stands to reason.

But as js207 points out, our police (and any other police force) is quite capable of jumping to wrong conclusions and pursuing a person they conclude is guilty as far as the courtroom, to the jailhouse, and, in some places, to the gallows too. Then a miscarriage of justice is revealed, and the police say "sorry ... our mistake." Small consolation for James Hanratty or George Kelly, don't you think?

But is it good enough to have to let a man suspected of a murder walk free because the evidence to convict him doesn't exist? "Better than the alternative" is about all I can say. You can take your chances now and prosecute on whatever evidence there is and risk a Not Guilty verdict, or bide your time in the (sometimes) forlorn hope that the evidence will be revealed in the future.

It seems to me that public outrage (never a good counsellor) caused the double jeopardy rule to be relaxed in Britain (England?) and that British justice is now less fair than it was: the innocent must now live in fear of another knock on the door ...

In Scotland (uniquely, I believe) there is a third possible verdict: Not Proven. I understand that if a jury is not satisfied as to a man's innocence, but feel that his guilt has not been demonstrated sufficiently, they will return this verdict, and the accused will be released but is liable to be tried again if the prosecution can come up with new evidence. How many times can this verdict be passed before the suspect is exonerated? Does this third verdict enable the double jeopardy rule to operate more or less effectively: does it mean that if you are not guilty your innocence cannot later be challenged, or does it mean, if you receive a not proven you will be pursued by the authorities right up to the very last?

Anyone care to opine?