Double Jeopardy

PrysdieHeer! · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: Double Jeopardy

I admire the Americans for many things, there Justice system is not one of them, or maybe this is just the impression I got from Watching Crime documentaries.
Now I`m sure Most American hate their Double Jeopardy Law - - - But What I Can`t understand is: Why they made it in the first Place, I understand You must limed convectors to convicting and not bothering, but that does not require such a law.
The Law should state- Unless new information is gathered, the suspect may not be convicted again!
But Who Am I to talk. South Africa has the highest crime rate in the world - - But I think that is mainly because of bad law-enforcement.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Prys die Heer!

P1234567890 · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject:

Double Jeopardy makes sense. One good reason for having it is so that the government can't repeatedly prosecute someone for years and years and years in order to destroy their lives.

PrysdieHeer! · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject:

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6840 Location: USA

I don't think you understand the 'double jeopardy' law.

PrysdieHeer! · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:51 am Post subject:

I once watched a documentary about this guy that got away with murder - - Even though he confessed - - Because of Double Jeopardy.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Prys die Heer!

45degreeN · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:44 am Post subject:

I forget which of the founding father wrote that it is better that one guilty man goes free than any innocent men are incarcerated.

The immense power of the state with its well paid prosecutors, who basically have unlimited budget to prove a person's guilt can be overwhelming and as you well know there are sad to say many innocent people who are sent to jail because of this inherent bias in the system.

Imagine some poor defendant whose only recourse is a public defender with their 50-60 other cases frequently will be advise them to compromise their freedom rather than attempt to prove their innocence in a trial.

No the burden of proof for the government must be far beyond that of the defendant and if they screw it up then so be it.

PrysdieHeer! · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject:

This is where You are wrong. You give the criminal more right than the suspect, I agree the government should have limited Power, but Don`t forget the goal of Justice.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Prys die Heer!

45degreeN · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject:

The requirements of conviction are beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not 50%+1 more likely true than not.

If you look at the constitution it is a document that has in many places placed people's rights above the government making the government's burden rise to paramount status to get things done. It was written by a group of people who were oppressed by the English crown and they wanted to guarantee that this government would not be the same way.

Remember that if you ever get into a similar situation you would want that same level or burden of proof. Those criminals as you call them are just people caught in the web of government power until they are proven guilty. Believe me they really don't have any "more" rights than all the rest of us just the same ones we all have.

We are more than anything a nation of laws, not people, and every one is under the laws especially those who work for the government.

The solution to double jeopardy is not to prosecute until the charges can be proven and therefore only one trial will take place.