Should double jeopardy be abolished?

[BillP]

manualman:

This is a false dilemma, can’t you see that? You ASSUME that there is no way to improve the current system! The system I proposed above would place the consequences of violation on the policeman in question instead of on the victim (or their family). Enforcement would still lie in the judicial branch of government, where it does today.

How is this eroding anyone’s rights? It seems to me that the current system is preferred because it is easier to implement, not because it is more just. In other words, it is laziness, not justice primarily at work in this principle.

Well, the “good faith exception” to procedural errors mentioned above would seem to validate your position. It seems that we DON’T throw our evidence if the police made an “honest” mistake. Your experience may be different, not the least because our systems is administered by fallible humans.

FWIW, I don’t think our evidence exclusions are a result of laziness so much as an excess of caution where the rights of the accused are concerned.

manualman:

Bill, I apologize for phony cussing at you. It was a long time ago, and few she knows today have any knowledge of it. Best keep it that way. My own mental health is probably not best suited to spending hours researching other such cases, so I’ll just let it go.

Absolutely not a problem. I had no idea that you were personally involved in a situation like that.For my part I am sorry I didn’t read your posts more carefully. In retrospect there are indications that such was the case.

 

[manualman]

Peace be with you.

 

[Lapsed]

I must admit that looking at the American system from Canada, the double jeopardy principle makes zero sense. Someone walking out of the courtroom after being acquited can tell a reporter, “Hey, I sure pulled the wool over that jury’s eyes. Of course I did it!” and he can’t be retried? That’s just ludicrous to me.

The criminal has the right to appeal a conviction, but the crown cannot appeal an acquital if new evidence comes to light?

Under the Canadian system, an accused cannot be retried (barring technical legal issues) on the same evidence. However, if new evidence comes to light, an appeal can be made on the basis of the new evidence. The new evidence is first presented to a judge who then rules on whether or not a new trial is warranted by it. This strikes me as a reasonable and well balanced approach to the issue.