Originally Posted By: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor
I was under the impression that the founding fathers who formulated the US constitution based the law on pre US revolutionary English common law. The US founding fathers may have taken on board the philosophy of Scottish enlightenment of Hume and his associates but the day to day pragmatic business of practised law was based on the English system of jurisprudence.


Yes and no.

Keeping in mind that I'm an IT consultant (not a historian, Constitutional law scholar, or attorney), my understanding is that the Founding Fathers wanted to retain English Common Law in general, but with a shift in the balance more towards defendants. The Constitution was the paramount instrument of that objective. English Common Law has no written constitution, the Magna Carta notwithstanding.

Quote:
The not proven ruling introduction into Scottish Law was actually a way of protecting an individual from the state using a 'ancient right'


That's a useful clarification, thank you. Since the current version of "not proven" permits a retrial, I still think we're better off without it in the US.

Quote:
Injustice is in itself a function of the ability to be able to afford or not afford the best representation. i.e. the wealthy are more likely to be set free (less likely to be convicted) than the poor.


There's no doubt that the US justice system has room for improvement, and I agree that this is one of the biggest problems.