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.
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?