This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Double Jeopardy
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- this came up in the Amanda Knox thread, and I wanted to see if it could generate it's own discussion.
Double Jeopardy. In the US, once you've been found not guilty of a crime, been acquitted on appeal, been pardoned, or if you've been found guilty and already sentenced, they are not allowed to try you again for the same crime, regardless of new evidence, your actions or statements after the fact, etc. If you are found guilty, you can appeal it a number of times to try and get the conviction overturned, and get a new trial, but once you're declared not guilty, they can't touch you. Also, if you are found guilty of a crime, and new information surfaces that would have made the crime worse (i.e.- if you are found guilty of manslaughter, and then documents come to light that show it was pre-meditated murder), they can't re-try you for the same killing at the higher charge.
There were a number of reasons this was instituted. The primary one, was that they thought that it would be too easy for the legal system, if they thought someone was guilty but couldn't prove it, to keep re-trying that person on the same charge until they got a guilty verdict. It would invalidate the jury trial process if they could just keep re-doing it until they got the answer they wanted, and also it would be like punishing someone without a trial, to have them dragged back into jail and court again and again, maybe for years, when they had already been found not guilty. I'm sure the burden and cost on the courts was a factor too.
The reason that this came up, is that in other countries this isn't necessarily the case. There are, of course, some countries where human rights abuses run rampant, and people are abused by the court system- but that's not necessarily what I'm talking about. In Italy, there are apparently two levels of appeals that either side can try for, if they thought that there were extenuating circumstances in the first trial. In the Amanda Knox case, the prosecutor is appealing the acquittal as we speak.
I hadn't ever considered a legal system with different standards on double jeopardy before- other than ones that have few rights for defendants at all- and the situation with Knox got me thinking. Are there cases where having a regimented system where either side had a limited number of appeals would be fairer or more effective than having a strict no-double-jeopardy policy?
For example, after he was found not guilty in criminal court (but civilly liable in a lawsuit, which has a lower standard for burden of proof), OJ Simpson wrote a book called "If I did it," which was basically a narrative of how he comitted the murders (under the pretense of it being a hypothetical situation). Under the current system, someone could walk out of the courtroom, and announce to the world that they were guilty of the crime they just got away with, announce to the family members of their victims that they killed their loved ones and no one can do anything about it, etc.
Another instance to take into account, is that this rule stands even if it is uncovered later that the criminal bought the vote of the judge or jury. The person they bribed will face chagres, and they might be convicted with bribing a public official or contempt of court or something, but it doesn't invalidate the original non-guilty verdict.
Also, it can often happen that significant evidence can come to light after a case is tried, that makes it obvious that the person did it. Let's say, for example, a man was tried for killing a child, but the body was never found, and he was acquitted. Three years later, they find him burying the body of another child, who he just killed, in a grave that already contained the body of the first child. That man can never be held accountable for the first murder.
What I am asking, is this- do you think that double jeopardy should apply in all cases, or do you think there should be statutes set up where, under extenuating circumstances, a person could be retried (maybe with a limit of one prosecution appeal per case) if they later admitted the crime, if they were proved to have paid their way to freedom the first time, or if very compelling evidence comes to light?
Post by
Adamsm
It honestly should be on a case by case basis for this; way too many people have cheated around it to get lesser sentences for greater crimes. But I've always been a fan of more....medieval style justice so.....
Post by
Interest
What I am asking, is this- do you think that double jeopardy should apply in all cases, or do you think there should be statutes set up where, under extenuating circumstances, a person could be retried (maybe with a limit of one prosecution appeal per case) if they later admitted the crime, if they were proved to have paid their way to freedom the first time, or if very compelling evidence comes to light?
I would say it honestly depends on the case at hand. I think it's fair if maybe the prosecution gets another shot if the crime is really THAT heinous and the judge or jury allows it.
i.e., the judge or jury declares "possibly guilty or not guilty."
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Interest
i.e., the judge or jury declares "possibly guilty or not guilty."
"Possibly" isn't compatible with the distinction of "beyond reasonable doubt" associated with "guilty" in the American legal system.
I'm glad it's in place, I'm sure it's saved more people than it's damned and I dislike the idea that 'special circumstances' bring up: who gets to decide.
I meant it in the sense the trial needs a "do-over." And this was under the assumption it was possible to ignore the concept of double jeopardy.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
There's room for that, though. Isn't that just what a hung jury is?
Post by
Adamsm
There's room for that, though. Isn't that just what a hung jury is?
Have to watch that though, as sometimes a mistrial can actually have double jeopardy declared onto the crime, which means you can't charge the defendant again, and have to wait for them to do it again, or screw up in some matter so that a different crime can be charged and the original information can try to be brought in.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Doctor- what about in a case where the defendant bribed the judge or jury?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
While I agree with the sentiment in general, I don't think it should include if new damning evidence is brought to light or if the person admits to the crime after the trial (Emmet Till, for example).
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
No. Then the mounties would always end up getting their man, innocent or not. Better to go after the incompetent investigators, as a few examples would help make sure that the rest do their jobs properly in the first place.
I tend to agree with this. I don't have the energy to put the amount of thought required for a good post on this topic (though I did find a ton of interesting papers on JSTOR, so maybe tomorrow), but it seems to me a criminal justice system which includes the death penalty in its repertoire of punishments must be designed such that its findings are considered finalized.
O.J. and Casey Anthony are examples that often come up in my mind when people talk about their respect for the soundness of the justice system (which is usually how people justify the Death Penalty). If the justice system is sound enough to justify Death as a punishment when someone is found guilty, then you must accept that someone is innocent when a trial finds them innocent. Hopefully my reasoning makes sense here -- if society trusts the justice system to end a life, they must also trust when it doesn't.
But, like I said, I'm not very read-up on this subject, so this is sort of an "off the cuff" response.
Post by
Squishalot
In Italy, there are apparently two levels of appeals that either side can try for, if they thought that there were extenuating circumstances in the first trial. In the Amanda Knox case, the prosecutor is appealing the acquittal as we speak.
The same applies in Australia.
The reasoning for that is so that either side is able to question the decision of a lower court, usually on procedural or legal matters (as opposed to matters of fact). Basically, if a side believes that they haven't been dealt with fairly (for example, a key witness excluded on some technicality or judge's whim), they can ask for a new trial to reflect the fact that justice was not served.
To be honest, I think the double jeopardy system is weirder, that once a decision is made, it can't be reversed even if new evidence comes to light. Not to bring the religion v science issue in on purpose, but that sounds about as silly as saying "There is no god, even if new evidence shows that one must exist". Why shouldn't a court system allow reversals of judgements where new evidence exists?
Also, isn't the US one of the countries where people are being released due to DNA testing proving that previously found guilty criminals were actually not guilty? Why doesn't double jeopardy apply there?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Misunderstood, I think. Double Jeopardy prevents a person being tried twice. The DNA testing is essentially a second trial where the new evidence being presented demonstrates that the person is not guilty.
My point is, if DNA can be used to set people free under the current rules, why can't it be used to lock people up? Or vice versa - if it can't be used to lock people up, why should it be used to set people free? There's an inconsistency in the application of the laws.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
Worth pointing out that the Supreme Court has ruled that fraudulent trials are an exception to the notion of
double jeopardy
, along with a few other instances. Another way in which they work is to prevent people from self-incriminating, which was apparently a mortal sin.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.