25 ms·
"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibili
by k__ 3y ago
"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction"
Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany.
They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence.
In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later they had DNA analysis that would have proven his guilt. The new law would have put him behind bars.
However, the federal constitutional court repealed the law, as the constitution forbids to convict someone two times for the same crime. They said legal certainty was more important than finding the truth.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y agoAlthough my first reaction is to support the idea of being able to retry cases when new evidence emerges, I can see the pitfalls if this were applied in a real-world justice system. There would have to be some pretty big barriers to overcome to prevent abuse (on the usual suspects, the poor and/or people the police/politicians just don't like) and then more rules to make sure those barriers themselves aren't used as loopholes by the truly guilty. I think it could be done, but its just as likely they do it in such a way to maximize state power without checks or balances.
- k__ 3y agoI totally understand where they coming from. Nevertheless, this loophole gives guilty people plausible deniability, since the system can never be sure to find the truth.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tgv 3y agoIsn't it common to be able to re-open court cases? That (technically, legally) sidesteps ne bis in idem (aka double jeopardy), but it requires that substantial new evidence is brought. So basically it adds that barrier, and the barrier becomes higher for every new attempt.
- SamBam 3y agoNo, it's not common to reopen court cases if the jury finds a person innocent. You can certainly reopen court cases where someone was found guilty, but that's not double jeopardy.
- bagels 3y agoJuries make guilty/not guilty findings, not innocence.
- PebblesRox 3y agoWhat's the technical distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent?"
- vharuck 3y agoIANAL, but Innocent = "We, the jury, are certain the defendant didn't do it." Not guilty = "The prosecution did not convince us, the jury, that the defendant did it." And because our criminal justice system is not set up to establish innocence, only to check if there's enough evidence to prove guilt, we don't use the term "innocent" for decisions.
- jurgenaut23 3y agoYou’re a statistician, aren’t you?
- retrac 3y agoThat is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like innocent until proven guilty). It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence, the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each acquittal, and try them again. The Americans in particular take it much further than some do; here in Canada the prosecution can appeal from an acquittal due to legal error in the decision; the prohibition on double jeopardy only applies to the entire process as a whole, after a final verdict including appeals. In the USA, a verdict issued by a jury, even at the first trial, is generally final and cannot be appealed even for reasons of legal error, while a guilty verdict can be appealed. American pluricentric power does create an odd circumstance where you can be tried twice in practice, though. If the federal government prosecutes someone for a crime, and fails to convict, if it was illegal under state law, the state government can try again under state law, or vice versa.
- graphe 3y agoInnocent until proven guilty isn't generally assumed. Look at India.
- watwut 3y agoThere is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. There should be obvious difference between "minor new development" and "major new finding". Likewise, there should be obvious difference between "potentially innocent person is in prison" and "prosecutor wants new attempt situations.
- teknico 3y agoNo such safeguard in Italy: people are regularly tried from three to up to five times. It’s not rare for someone to be found guilty after having been found not guilty once, and sometimes even twice. https://www.nicolaporro.it/uccise-il-padre-per-difendere-la-madre-lanomalia-del-caso-alex-pompa/ https://www.nicolaporro.it/uccise-il-padre-per-difendere-la-...
- arlort 3y agoEven that article refers to the fact that the same principle applies in Italy too, though it's interpreted differently. In the US (to take a reference) only convictions can be appealed, in Italy the prosecution can also appeal if the accused has been acquitted. Once the appeals have been exhausted however the principle applies It's a weaker guarantee but it's incorrect to say that it's missing entirely
- aquafox 3y ago> the constitution forbids to convict someone two times for the same crime He wasn't convicted, which means the reason he isn't convicted for the first time now is because he is not allowed to be convicted twice. That doesn't make sense to me.
- belorn 3y agoCan't the German supreme court reopen cases? The Swedish Supreme Court can reopen cases when there are new evidence, through there are some restrictions. The new evidence/circumstances need to be significant enough that if it was already known during the first trial, then the outcome would most likely been different. There also need to be a good and valid reason why the new evidence was not presented during the first trial. New DNA technology has been the cause for such trials. Last year a person was found guilty of murder after 26 years, after being acquitted from a lack of evidence.