And you guessed wrong.
You will not find your cause popular.
Given the climate of today's electorate, when Al Gore, Hillary, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and others, are considered 'popular' I will be satisfied to be on the 'unpopular' side.
The double jeopardy protection was placed in the Constitution for the specific reason that the Founders saw an abuse of the English legal system.
You seem to believe that I am proposing an 'either or' situation. I am confident that better legal minds then mine or yours, could draft a provision that allows for a 'not proved' but prevents the abuses that may have occurred 250 years ago. Perhaps, the English have already done so as I am not an expert on English law.
However, a system that allows a murderer to go free, as did OJ, is a system with a glaring weakness. Even you should be able to admit that.
and a jury reaches determinations of fact.
You mean as they did in the OJ case?
That's fine if you're posturing. If you want to change law or policy -- more so if you want to amend the Constitution -- you'll need votes.
I am confident that better legal minds then mine or yours, could draft a provision that allows for a 'not proved' but prevents the abuses that may have occurred 250 years ago.
I'm less confident. A "not proven" verdict is inherently open to abuse. Keep getting that verdict, and you can hold someone for life, dragging out the trials, without a conviction.
However, a system that allows a murderer to go free, as did OJ, is a system with a glaring weakness. Even you should be able to admit that.
It's imperfect. Show me a better one. The American legal system. be design, gives the defendant the benefit of the doubt -- and even with all that, the 200th wrongly-convicted murderer was recently freed through DNA testing.
The old maxim is that "interesting cases make bad law." OJ is the poster boy. I, like most folks, am unwilling to rethink two centuries of American jurisprudence because one killer with unlimited funds for his defense managed to slip the noose.