"My duty is to speak out; I do not wish to be an accomplice in this travesty. My nights would otherwise be haunted by the spectre of the innocent man, far away, suffering the most horrible of tortures for a crime he did not commit."

This passionate prose was composed by one of France's foremost 19th Century writers, Emile Zola. He was writing about Alfred Dreyfus, a young officer who became the centre of one of France's most controversial political scandals.

Dreyfus was falsely convicted of treasonThe crime of betraying your country. and sentenced to life imprisonment. He spent five years in jail, before a campaign to bring him justice led to his release.

It is a topic still grimly relevant today. Even if just a tiny proportion of people convicted of a crime worldwide are falsely accused, it means that thousands of innocent people are imprisoned. Ethnic minorities are especially at risk.¹ Now, many think it is time to reform the legal system.

In many countries across the world, defendants have a legal right called the "presumption of innocence". This means that the prosecution must have absolute proof that the accused is guilty to convict them - they are "innocent until proven guilty".

Some are questioning the justness of this rule. It means that even if the available evidence strongly suggests that a defendant is guilty, they may escape a conviction if just one or two jurors have doubts.

Meanwhile, if a defendant is unlikely to have committed the crime, they might escape a conviction but remain unable to live a normal life. A criminal or arrest record can damage your ability to find employment, secure housing or take out loans.

Some think jurors should be able to reflect their differing levels of confidence in a defendant's guilt through more than two available verdicts, or through a proportional system.² This should reduce the damage of wrongful convictions.

But the presumption of innocence is a long-standing default. It can be traced all the way back to Ancient Rome, when a juristAn expert in the law. from the 2nd Century stated that "proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies".

Jurors in Scotland have the option of three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. However, the policy will likely soon be abolishedTo get rid of a rule or practice. .³

For some, false convictions are a necessary evil to secure justice in most cases. Others argue that we need to reform our age-old systems and focus on precision.

Yes: A range of options reflects the uncertainties of legal cases. If the burden of proof overwhelmingly suggests that someone is guilty, they should face consequences. The way things are, we risk letting dangerous criminals walk free.

No: These new justice models risk unjustly imprisoning even more people. If you cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone is guilty, you risk ruining the life of an innocent person, which is also an unjustifiable crime.

Or... Evidence is becoming increasingly easy to gather as we enhance technologies for surveillance, DNA analysis, etc. Therefore, it is possible that reform will not be needed.

Treason - The crime of betraying your country.

Jurist - An expert in the law.

Abolished - To get rid of a rule or practice.