Could I raise a somewhat academic question? The idea of conviction is binary: either you're convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt or you let the man go. In a way this is good, but in a way, because of it, prosecutors end up putting a lot of innocent people behind bars while defense attorneys get a lot of guilty people off the hook.
What if there is a slight -- repeat slight -- spectrum? Personally, I would not mind being theoretically "conditionally detained/penalized/sentenced" provided:
1. The penalty is low -- police surveillance, fine that will be returned if exonerated
2. You're compensated if exonerated
3. These penalties carry no more stigma than jury duty
A scheme like this might allow the criminal justice system to move a bit faster. Or does this sound completely outrageous?
No it is not a bad idea. The Scottish legal system has something along this lines with the "not proven" verdict [0]. You are not proven guilty, but at the same time the jury doesn't think you are innocent. It is something I would like to see used outside of Scotland.
Well, either you did it or not. If it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt, we decide you didn't. What you're proposing is essentially 'you might have done it so we're going to slap you a bit'. But if we can't prove somebody did it beyond reasonable doubt, we should just aquit.
Isn't that the point of a misdemeanor vs felony? Probation ("police surveillance") and fines are usual punishments, as opposed to prison time. Traffic violations are also an example of a more "agile" system.
What if there is a slight -- repeat slight -- spectrum? Personally, I would not mind being theoretically "conditionally detained/penalized/sentenced" provided:
1. The penalty is low -- police surveillance, fine that will be returned if exonerated
2. You're compensated if exonerated
3. These penalties carry no more stigma than jury duty
A scheme like this might allow the criminal justice system to move a bit faster. Or does this sound completely outrageous?