3 ms·
Although 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-
by Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Although 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?