A sad, sad article in the Telegraph about the imminent proposals by the Blair government in Britain that threaten the four cornerstones of British law — which, it should be noted, are cornerstones of US law as well:
- The right to trial by jury. Using dubious numbers that suggest juries acquit more often than judges, the British government proposes to do away with many jury trials, for both simple crimes and for complex ones. Right.
- Innocent until proven guilty. This is being twisted in some cases by EU laws which (after the French model) presume guilt (certain discrimination laws, for example). It’s also being turned about by proposals to let judges inform juries more often of previous arrests and convictions.
- No imprisonment without charge (habeas corpus). This one is tied to the EU, which would allow other member governments to demand arrest and extradition of Brits, regardless of whether there’s been a charge filed in court.
- No second prosecution for the same defense (double jeopardy). After some well-publicized bungled cases, the proposed fix is not better prosecutors, but giving them unlimited chances “if new evidence is found.” Yeah, that should be difficult.
All of these proposals only make sense if you live in an ideal world where individuals in the government would never dream of inappropriately using their power over the citizenry, i.e., where humans are perfect. Since that same ideal world would mean no crime in the first place, one gets hint of how well such changes in the law can be expected to work. I have no doubt, of course, that more guilty people will go to jail. Is there any doubt that more innocent ones will go, too?
What’s scary is that there are plenty of people in this country who would be more than willing to advocate such changes, all in the name of “law & order,” “punishing the guilty,” “protecting our loved ones,” and, of course, “homeland security.” And not all of those people work in the current Administration.
Fortunately, we have something called the Constitution that protects us from willy-nilly changes to such laws (both by the difficulty in changing it, and by the relative sanctity in which it is held. Pity the Brits never adopted one.