I think that perhaps the only changes in the justice system need to be in the rules of the courtroom. If attorneys begin to try to tap emotional reactions, they should be silenced by the judge. The facts are what are important. Further, I kind of like the option for the jury to return an additional verdict of "Not Proven." Functionally, it is no different from "Not Guilty" but it gives the jurors a way to accurately depict their decision, and ease their conscience- that they felt that there is a strong likelihood the accused committed the crime, but guilt cannot be firmly established. Also if the jury returns "not proven," they could be allowed to add the condition of "pending further review," which would allow prosecutors to appeal to a higher court to order a continuation of the trial, but only if new evidence is found later. While this would require a constitutional amendment to add the provision as an exception to the protections from Double Jeopardy, it would close a gap in the system, and retain the ability to end a trial with the jury, not the prosecutor.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. Remember, our Consitution was based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the American court system, a prosecuting attorney only has one chance to try a case. I'm afraid the "not proven" type verdict (sounds similar to Canada's laws) would allow manufactured or phony "new evidence," to put someone undesirable in prison, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.
This proposal, IMO, is no better than some of the vigilante-type laws proposed in haste in the wake of the Anthony verdict. We are convinced that she is guilty, that she must be guilty because we saw the pictures of the little girl smiling cutely and clutching a teddy bear, and have heard stories about the woman's shady background ... so we want to make sure new laws are created so that the next mother who is accused in the death of her little girl can be whisked away and taken to the oven -- after all, the gas chamber or lethal injection surely is too good for such a rotten, vile, evil individual, so why not cook them to death in an oven? After all, they're going to Hell anyway, right? Well, right???!!!
I am positive that, when our Constitution was written that much thought was put into the original 10 Amendments, including those relating to the accused's rights. I would venture to guess that the "not proven"-type of jury verdict as suggested was pondered, debated and rejected for the very reason I stated -- that it would allow an accuser an unfair advantage and place an unintended burden upon a defendant to prove himself/herself innocent. The "double jeopardy" standard I'm sure was probably also considered. Also, the jury already does have the "final say" in a case (pending a defense team's appeal), not the prosecuting attorney. They might speak to the media about how they were disappointed with the verdict, but for them to appeal based on dissatisfaction or perceived injustice is wrong.
I agree with your assessment that the justice system works, and sometimes criminals do get away with their crimes. I also agree that attorneys should not be allowed to tap into a jury's emotional reactions (again, by showing a little girl posing with those puppy-dog eyes or a picture of her holding the teddy bear). Only hard evidence, in tandem with circumstantial evidence, should be used to convict. (Not circumstantial alone -- amazing how a "Brady Bunch" lesson ties in here).
Brian
