Is it time for America to repeal its double jeopardy law? With so many wrongful convictions being overturned by new evidence, most notably DNA. Why should the law not be even-handed and be able to overturn a wrongful acquittal?
A case can be made that very strict and overwhelming evidence would have to be submitted to an appellant court. More so than even a defense case and the case would have to be re-tried by a jury. But this has been in the UK legal system for many years now and no legal miscarriages have as yet arisen.
I understand that this is a constitutional issue and that it would not be easy. However, I personally think that any politician that stood on this platform would secure a large part of the law-and-order vote.
What do you think?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The main reason for double jeopardy is to prevent political persecutions of dissidents from the ruling government being endlessly hounded with repeated prosecutions for the same alleged crime. It is a safeguard against dictators keeping their opponents jailed while they continue to fabricate new evidence against them. It is similar to capital punishment, which I also oppose, because in dictatorships the death penalty is unequally applied to political dissidents as well after they have been wrongfully convicted.
TomMcGiverin
Level 8
Mar 7, 2020
1
The UK cases are for rape, murder or both. There is a very high bar set by the judiciary.
I think that if the justice system fails to prove my guilt, that's it, I'm innocent. If they want a second chance, Fuck Off.
By the way, it's not a law, it's an essential part of a constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights put in place by the founding fathers.
RoboGraham
Level 8
Mar 7, 2020
0
Firstly, I doubt very much if you would ever commit murder or rape which is the only cases I am aware that this has been used for in the UK.
Secondly, if by any unfortunate circumstance one of your family was a victim of such a miscarriage of justice. I also doubt that you might be as adamant. Even without any personal involvement and the victims are strangers, there should be a case for justice.
I know it is in the constitution but that does not automatically make it right (sorry).
I don't doubt that if a crime was committed which harmed me or people I care about about and the perpetrator got away with it, I'd be pissed and would probably demand a new trial if some new evidence were to come to light later. In that situation though, I am emotionally invested and my opinion ought to be recused and meaningless.
If the state has the ability to tie up a persons life with a constant never ending series of trials, it will be abused and used to fuck over people who the state has reason to go after. Look at what they are doing to Assange and he didn't break any laws.
The constitution is not perfect. That's why it's been amended so many times. But it is the closest thing to sacred that we have here so people get up in arms when there is talk of undoing parts of it.
@RoboGraham I suppose that we have more faith in the impartiality of our judiciary because it is not elected. It is very separate from the executive. Of the 2nd cases that have been brought, there has not been one occasion that has resulted in a not-guilty verdict. We are talking about evidence so stong that would normally be accompanied by a guilty plea
Well sure if you can trust the judicial system that's totally different. It isn't possible to trust them. This is one of the reasons why I am opposed to capital punishment as well.
@RoboGraham We abolished the death penalty in the 60s (except for high treason but that's gone now too). Like every other 1st world nation no capital punishment and universal healthcare.
I'm envious.
It looks like we are set to reelect Trump and continue with our national regression for the foreseeable future.
Are you crazy? Allowing a second shot at trial after acquittal would encourage prosecutors to abuse the system and vindictively go after individuals no matter what. The law as it stands is an attempt to stop political prosecutions and a means of encouraging prosecutors to not abuse the system.
Imagine you are innocent but an unscrupulous prosecutor has it out for you. How many chances do you think he should have to convict you: 1, 2, 3, or more? That is what you are inviting.
Rob1948
Level 7
Mar 7, 2020
1
Right, even if you are totally innocent and they haven't a chance at getting a guilty verdict, they could ruin your life by constantly putting you on trial.
How it works in the UK is, only when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Usually, it would be DNA or some scientific forensic evidence that was not available at the time of the 1st trial. The prosecution must make a watertight case before it would be considered.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.