"My duty is to speak out; I do not wish to be an accompliceA person who helps somebody else commit a crime. in this travestyA fake and offensive representation of something. Travesty descends from the French verb travestir, meaning to disguise.. 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."

These passionate words were written by one of France's best-known 19th Century writers, Emile ZolaA 19th Century French novelist, known for his role in the naturalist literature movement, aiming to to put the principles of science into art. . He was writing about Alfred Dreyfus, a young officer who found himself at the centre of one of France's biggest 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 led to his release.

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, defendantsPeople who are accused in a court. are "innocent until proven guilty". This means that prosecutors must produce evidence that absolutely proves their guilt beyond doubt before they can be convicted.

The "innocent until proven guilty" rule can be traced all the way back to Ancient Rome.

Some are questioning the fairness of this rule. It means that even if the evidence strongly suggests that a defendant is guilty, they may escape a convictionA firmly held belief or a formal declaration that someone is guilty. .

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 show different levels of confidence in a defendant's guilt through more than two available verdicts, or through a proportional system.² The multiple verdicts could be "definitely guilty", "probably guilty", "probably innocent", and "definitely innocent".

In Scotland, there are already three verdicts, but the third may be abolishedTo get rid of a rule or practice. .

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.