As England and Wales have already gotten rid of this ancient relic of former times, which prevented multiple prosecutions of a suspect for the same crime, Scotland is also considering getting rid of this encumbrance on state prosecution:
The centuries-old law preventing someone acquitted of a crime from being tried again in a Scottish court could be abolished.
But a review of the rule by the Scottish Law Commission also said any change in the law should not be imposed on cases retrospectively.
Of course, our noble prosecutors would never take advantage of this change to harass or punish anyone:
Patrick Layden, QC, lead commissioner on the review, said he believed the basic principles behind double jeopardy should remain.
He said it was up to parliament to decide whether or not retrials could be held in serious cases where strong new evidence became available after the accused was acquitted.
I understand the urge to change the law — it is frustrating to see a criminal get away with a crime due to insufficient evidence being available when the case goes to court. The BBC article specifically mentions a case where this seems to have happened, and quotes family members of the victims about their disappointment and anger over the acquittal.
That being said, I still think it’s a bad idea to allow the state to serially prosecute someone until they get a favourable result. The power and resource imbalance between a government and an individual provides far too much opportunity for the stronger party to eventually succeed — and there’s no guarantee that they’ll be correct about the actual guilt of the person being prosecuted (and we’ve certainly seen more faulty prosecutions lately as DNA evidence becomes easier and cheaper to evaluate).
