Under the present system, the jury can only either vote a verdict of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. But all too often the evidence for serious crimes is only circumstantial. There's a very high probability the accused did it—or so it seems—but you can't know for certain. Should there be another, third option for the jury? I mean like "not proven beyond a shadow of doubt". That way we wouldn't be letting someone who was probably guilty go off without punishment, but at the same time the jury would be able to have some input into recommending a more lenient sentence, in light of there being a small probability the accused did not do it. There are many court cases where the jury ended up voting guilty just because the burden of evidence was verging on the edge. The case could have gone either way. (And we all know there's a tremendous pressure for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict) Some people who might be innocent will get the full burden of the law, and some people who might be guilty will get let off, just because there wasn't quite enough evidence to be absolutely sure with complete confidence. Maybe it's more logical to have a slightly more graduated approach. I know some people say the defendant shouldn't be found guilty if it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but in reality, that's not how it works. There are crimes so terrible, it's human nature to want to punish, regardless of whether there might be a tiny chance the one being accused didn't do it. And if there's no intermediate option, the one being sentenced could get the full measure of the law. I know the judges have some discretion in sentencing, but shouldn't this be something the jury has more input into? After all, it's supposed to be the jury who decides whether there's enough evidence or not, or how much the evidence proves guilt.