It worries me when the politicians seriously consider allowing criminal conviction in some cases on a reduced standard of evidence. In Scotland, there has to be some corroboration, two fingers of guilt pointing at the accused. That can be a combination of eyewitness, forensic evidence or even a confession. That's why there used to be fewer wrongful convictions in Scotland than in England and Wales where forced,or even fake, confessions or one lying, or perhaps foolish, eyewitness could send someone to the gallows. Of course, some crimes are notorious for lack of sources of corroboration. But accusation alone should never result in conviction. That's harsh, I know, but if someone tells you Life is fair, they are lying. Everyday people get away with terrible things because of a lack of corrobated evidence or even witnesses who refuse to testify.