They are called "Amendments, it has been done before. 27 times as I recall, the last being in 1992. But I assume you did not know that.
There already is a "not proved" option. It's called a mistrial. Any non-unanimous verdict.
I should not have to explain something this simple. But a judge declares a mistrial, not a jury. In England, when a judge gives his instructions to the jury, he tells them they have the option to vote "not proven". Our juries do not have this option. I simply was stating that I believe they should.
I did. You assumed wrong. You did not mention a constitutional amendment, so I guessed you had another mechanism in mind.
If you want to amend double jeopardy out of the Constitution, knock yourself out. You will not find your cause popular.
I should not have to explain something this simple. But a judge declares a mistrial, not a jury.
I should not have to explain something this simple. But a judge reaches findings of law, and a jury reaches determinations of fact. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous finding of fact, then as a matter of law no verdict can be sustained. So we start over and try again.
In England, when a judge gives his instructions to the jury, he tells them they have the option to vote "not proven". Our juries do not have this option. I simply was stating that I believe they should.
The Founders disagreed. The double jeopardy protection was placed in the Constitution for the specific reason that the Founders saw an abuse of the English legal system. The government did not have to prove anyone guilty to lock him up for life -- they could just keep retrying him, and holding him during the trial, over and over again until he died. Voila. Life sentence without verdict. It makes the courts a hollow formality.