Should the Double Jeopardy Rule be Abolished?

[Skillet]

The double jeopardy rule states that no person can be tried for the same crime more than once. Do you think this should be changed?





Personally, if enough new evidence is there, I believe a person should be able to be tried again, under the grounds of just that. I'm sure we all have cases where we'd like to see the person tried again. OJ anyone?



Anyways, what are your views?

 

[Princess]

No. Double jeopardy is there for a reason. To protect a person against malicious prosecution (persecution)

Yeah, it's not a perfect system--OJ may have gotten away with murder (and others too, probably) but I'd rather have the double jeopardy rule in place than not. What if OJ, for example, were found not guilty in the first trial, and in the second, and maybe even the third--do you still keep wasting taxpayer money until you get the verdict you want? What if a prosecutor just had a grudge against someone? He could keep wasting time and money and resourses to get 'evidence' against the person he wanted convicted, and maybe the real killer would get away.

 

[Bluezone777]

Um I don't think you all know what the double jeopardy rule really stands for.



That rule forbids you from punishing a person twice for the same offense not forbidding you from trying them twice for the same offense.

 

[Princess]

Legal definition of double jeopardy--Being tried twice for the same offense;

prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).



http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

 

[Bluezone777]

Umm well I stand corrected then. I apparently don't appear to know what I am talking about.

Well as the law is stated in above post, I don't see why anyone would want to remove that one. It seems to make perfect sense to me why it's there.

 

[Princess]

Sometimes, a guilty criminal can get off due to a technicality. I have seen it happen myself.

There was a guy that was tried for murder in Louisville. Everyone 'knew' he was guilty, but couldn't prove it. After he was aquitted at the trial, then evidence was found that he did it. He was convicted on other crimes--but not murder.

It's not a perfect system, but it's what we got--and I think it beats the alternative.

 

[Skillet]

It was just a topic I added to get some discussion, but glad to see some responses. And it isn't a perfect system; but as an old saying goes, it is better to let 100 prisoners go than it is to wrongfully convict one person. The law will always have it's faults, and you do bring up a good point of tax money. Never really thought from that perspective. If you were innocent once, whose going to say you won't be found innocent again.