Should double jeopardy be abolished?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D_Quintero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

D_Quintero

Guest
Double jeopardy states that you can not be tried for the same crime twice.
After much research, I am still undecided.
On one hand, I do not like for a murderer to be sent home just because of a technicality. Then after further evidence, it is found out that he is guilty. On the other hand, I would not want to be a innocent person charged for a crime time and time again. Imagine, you’re innocent but the constant threat of going back to court and being presumed guilty would bring great fear and insecurity into one’s life. Can someone help me make a decision? Thank you
Ps- I believe double jeopardy is a moral issue. If it is not, feel free to move it.
 
Great question. I do not know if the Church has an official stance. I would say that this is up to the invidual person with a well formed conscience to decide.

God bless and may the Lord guide you deeping into the Truth!
 
In my home country Scotland the system in my view is good. There are 3 possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.
Not Proven means that a person can be brought back to trial for the same crime if new evidence comes to light.
 
Double jeopardy exists because the government has unlimited resources – a vindictive government could drive a person into absolute poverty by charging him with the same crime over and over.
 
This is purely a legal matter, as I see it, and not a moral issue. Allowing prosecutors retry criminal cases until they got a conviction would be a travesty. However, things are often not so simple. For example, a person may be found not guilty of murder (and necessarily all the lesser included offenses) in a state court, that does not necessarily prevent his (or her) being tried in federal court on some federal charge such as denial of civil rights.

O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake would be quick to tell you a verdict of not guilty in a crminal action will be of no use in a civil case for damages, as in their cases, for wrongful death.

Morally, the judgment of a court of law is of little consequence. If a person has sinned, whether a jury finds him guilty or not means nothing to God.
 
40.png
thistle:
In my home country Scotland the system in my view is good. There are 3 possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.
Not Proven means that a person can be brought back to trial for the same crime if new evidence comes to light.
Click to expand...
This seems to place a burden of proof on the defendant to prove his innocence to be found not guilty. In England and the United States the burden is on the crown and government respectively to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sounds a little scary.
 
Absolutely not. If it was abolished, you would not have prosecutions, but persecutions by allowing courts to try and try people until they get a conviction.

What needs to be abolished is civil suits against people that have been criminally found innocent of crimes.

PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Absolutely not. If it was abolished, you would not have prosecutions, but persecutions by allowing courts to try and try people until they get a conviction.

What needs to be abolished is civil suits against people that have been criminally found innocent of crimes.

PF
Click to expand...
I agree – it appears to me the original intent was to limit the action to one bite at the apple. An acquittal in one criminal court should be an absolute bar to a lawsuit (for the same act) and to prosecution in any other court.
 
I had a friend who was a D.A., and she said one of the most difficult things for her was when a jury came back with a verdict of “Not guilty,” and that was it. No second chances.

That said, I think we need to leave it the way it is. Our system is set up under the idea that it is better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be imprisoned.
 
If the verdict comes back as not-guilty and evidence is later found to the contrary, cannot the criminal be charged on counts of purgery (sp? lying in a court of law)?
 
Lady Cygnus:
If the verdict comes back as not-guilty and evidence is later found to the contrary, cannot the criminal be charged on counts of purgery (sp? lying in a court of law)?
Click to expand...
Difficult to do – first of all, most criminal defendants never take the stand. Secondly, the Constitution severely restricts re-examining facts presented to a jury – so if the first jury accepted the defendant’s testimony it would be hard to make a case that it should be re-examined in another trial.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be done – but it’s very difficult.
 
D Quintero:
Double jeopardy states that you can not be tried for the same crime twice.
After much research, I am still undecided.
On one hand, I do not like for a murderer to be sent home just because of a technicality. Then after further evidence, it is found out that he is guilty. On the other hand, I would not want to be a innocent person charged for a crime time and time again. Imagine, you’re innocent but the constant threat of going back to court and being presumed guilty would bring great fear and insecurity into one’s life. Can someone help me make a decision? Thank you
Ps- I believe double jeopardy is a moral issue. If it is not, feel free to move it.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the concept of double jeopardy is immoral. Indeed, I believe that the reverse is true. Frankly, I even have moral difficulty with what has happened in both the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake situations in which a civil court “essentially” violated the principle.

Centuries ago, if someone was being hanged, and the rope broke, it was considered “God’s Mercy” and the convict was frequently freed.

It’s a moot point, really, as the principle of no double jeopardy is enshrined in the US Constitution, and it would take an amendment to change that – and I don’t see that happening.

Blessings,
 
Keep it. It is crucial to limiting the power of government.

However, what I think needs rethinking is the idea that improperly obtained evidence in inadmissable. Right now in our system if cops find a gun on a guy, find powder residue that says he fired it since the last time he showered and conclusively match the gun to the bullet in the victim, that can all be ‘thrown out’ and barred from being presented in a court of law if the cops searched him illegally.

I don’t know how to ensure that cops respect everybody’s rights without this concept, but what we have now where goofs by cops give killers a 'get-out-of-jail-free" card is insanity.
 
40.png
manualman:
Keep it. It is crucial to limiting the power of government.
Click to expand...
Amen.
40.png
manualman:
However, what I think needs rethinking is the idea that improperly obtained evidence in inadmissable. Right now in our system if cops find a gun on a guy, find powder residue that says he fired it since the last time he showered and conclusively match the gun to the bullet in the victim, that can all be ‘thrown out’ and barred from being presented in a court of law if the cops searched him illegally.
Click to expand...
The problem is, how do you enforce the 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches?

If cops can search without a warrant, and use the evidence in court, why bother with warrants at all?
40.png
manualman:
I don’t know how to ensure that cops respect everybody’s rights without this concept, but what we have now where goofs by cops give killers a 'get-out-of-jail-free" card is insanity.
Click to expand...
Actually, the present system works pretty well – cops who screw up get black marks in their records, and those who respect the Constitution do not – and that’s just how we want it.
 
And killers get away with their crimes due to errors by police.

I guess we define ‘working well’ differently.

I don’t see why courts couldn’t note improper procedures used by police and place such notes in the cops permanent law enforcement record. Get more than a couple and you are demoted to parking meter duty.

But the killer still goes to jail.
 
40.png
manualman:
And killers get away with their crimes due to errors by police.

I guess we define ‘working well’ differently.
Click to expand...
If you want a system that is completely free of error, then it can’t be one run by humans.

The current system works because when a cop violates civil rights, he pays a penalty.
40.png
manualman:
I don’t see why courts couldn’t note improper procedures used by police and place such notes in the cops permanent law enforcement record. Get more than a couple and you are demoted to parking meter duty.

But the killer still goes to jail.
Click to expand...
Demoted by who? By the Chief of Police, who isn’t getting heat for failing to solve the crime? By the prosecutor, who has a perfect conviction record as a result of police violations of civil rights?

Cops would brag about the court complaints in their records!

But under the present system, the cop is standing in front of the Chief who is shouting, “You stupid &^%$!! We’d have won this case but for your *&^% failure to follow procedures!”
 
40.png
manualman:
And killers get away with their crimes due to errors by police.
Click to expand...
Outside of bad television shows I have yet to see or hear of a case where “a killer went free” because of a procedural error.

On the other hand, Illinois ACQUITTED (note; these folks WEREN’T GUILTY!!, not “they were guilty but didn’t deserve the death penalty”) 13 (!) people facing execution before Ryan commuted the other 167 death sentences. That’s an error rate of 7%.

Meanwhile Texas by itself has executed 355 inmates since 1982 and has another 410 on death row, but has only found 10 “innocent” men in the last 30 years.

Yeah, lets make it easier to convict people to slake our thirst for vengence.
 
40.png
OriginalJS:
This seems to place a burden of proof on the defendant to prove his innocence to be found not guilty. In England and the United States the burden is on the crown and government respectively to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sounds a little scary.
Click to expand...
As I see it, this is not placing any burden of proof on the defendant, but rather, the crown must prove that he is guilty, or he is found not guilty, or the verdict is that they cannot make up their minds! (Not proven, meaning that there is insufficient evidence either way - a hung jury, in other words). In the case of “not proven”, I would assume that the crown could re-prosecute if they find further evidence, much the same way that, in the United States, persons can be re-prosecuted it there is a mis-trial.
 
Joan M:
As I see it, this is not placing any burden of proof on the defendant, but rather, the crown must prove that he is guilty, or he is found not guilty, or the verdict is that they cannot make up their minds! (Not proven, meaning that there is insufficient evidence either way - a hung jury, in other words). In the case of “not proven”, I would assume that the crown could re-prosecute if they find further evidence, much the same way that, in the United States, persons can be re-prosecuted it there is a mis-trial.
Click to expand...
Yeah but retrials have to take place fairly quickly because of the “speedy and public trial” clausein the Constitution. The “not Proven” verdict would mean that defendants would have to live the rest of their lives wondering when some DA with an election to win is going to have another bash at them.

If we permit evidence of illegal searches to be used at trial we will have gone a long way down the road to the place where ANYBODY can be convicted of trumped up charges at the whim of the government.
 
vern humphrey:
If you want a system that is completely free of error, then it can’t be one run by humans.

The current system works because when a cop violates civil rights, he pays a penalty.

Demoted by who? By the Chief of Police, who isn’t getting heat for failing to solve the crime? By the prosecutor, who has a perfect conviction record as a result of police violations of civil rights?

Cops would brag about the court complaints in their records!

But under the present system, the cop is standing in front of the Chief who is shouting, “You stupid &^%$!! We’d have won this case but for your *&^% failure to follow procedures!”
Click to expand...
By the chief. Because it would be the law. “Sorry, Bud. This is the third time in five years. Law says I gotta let you go.” And if he failed to do it, the ACLU, Jesse Jackson et all would have a field day publicly flogging the guy and the elected official who hired him until both lost their jobs.

Realize that nobody is talking about relaxing the standard of reasonable doubt here. No reason this would lead to any innocent man being convicted. But it oughtta make it a lot tougher for a guilty man to get off.

Right now, the VICTIM pays the price when cops make errors. That AIN’T right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top