U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should there be exceptions made to the DJ law in extreme cases?
yes 13 40.63%
no 19 59.38%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2011, 08:48 AM
 
1,359 posts, read 4,379,787 times
Reputation: 771

Advertisements

Absolutely not, it's one of the key things our country was founded on--trying to prevent a government from abusing the courts to keep citizens in line.

This wouldn't be just amending the Constitution either, it would basically be removing part of it. If you look back most of the Amendments have added things, not taken them away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2011, 10:05 AM
 
1,617 posts, read 2,465,687 times
Reputation: 1352
Great question and clearly one of those slippery slope questions/decisions and in my opinion, a new law, which would undoubtedly take a long time to put together and approve and have ratified by both house/senate....I think there would certainly have to be very very very clear and specific components to being able to use that law - perhaps some examples could be:
a. if it was determined that a juror was bribed;
b. if it was determined that a witness duly and wilfully committed perjury;
c. if it was determined that the offender wilfully committed perjury and/or altered evidence in some way;
d. if it was determined that the offender threatened a witness w/bodily harm and/or their family w/bodily harm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,786,494 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
You may not know this but we have no such law in Canada. Because we have a pretty reasonable justice system it rarely gets abused. However on a couple of cases that I can remember there was abuse for sure. Under our system you can be tried over and over again for the same crime. If some prosecuter for some reason thinks you are guilty he can appeal a not guilty verdict and get another shot at you i the appeal is granted. One poor guy got tried 3 times for murdering the little girl who lived next door. It was horrible. They really did not have any evidence they for some reason just thought the guy must have done it. He eventually sued the crown and was given something like 10 million dollars. That is one big difference here. If ou are wrongly convicted or abused by the jutice system the compensation seems to be between one to two million a year that you spent in jail.
.
You see what you described above isn't right at all. I agree with the double jeopardy law for that reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarmaple View Post
Great question and clearly one of those slippery slope questions/decisions and in my opinion, a new law, which would undoubtedly take a long time to put together and approve and have ratified by both house/senate....I think there would certainly have to be very very very clear and specific components to being able to use that law - perhaps some examples could be:
a. if it was determined that a juror was bribed;
b. if it was determined that a witness duly and wilfully committed perjury;
c. if it was determined that the offender wilfully committed perjury and/or altered evidence in some way;
d. if it was determined that the offender threatened a witness w/bodily harm and/or their family w/bodily harm.
I dont agree with any of your examples except for maybe a.

I believe that if you could put someone on trial again, the burden of proof should have to be so high that the defendants guilt would be undeniable. Proof of this nature would require nothing short of DNA or forensic evidence that showed without a doubt the defendant was guilty. That is the only way I would go along with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 02:47 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 9,304,041 times
Reputation: 8053
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
Because we have a pretty reasonable justice system it rarely gets abused. However on a couple of cases that I can remember there was abuse for sure.
I am sure there would be more than a couple of abuse cases by the Canadian justice system. This is one that happened this month.

In 2005, Katrina Effert, then 19, secretly gave birth in her parents’ basement, strangled her baby boy with her underwear, and threw his body over a fence into a neighbor’s yard.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTW-RWF7zRkZ0xx_XUkjVNXRCEy1DlY6sxLrsxqM60vopCvznc0 (broken link)

Two Canadian juries found her guilty of second-degree murder (in 2006 and 2009). Two times the verdicts were thrown out by provincial appeals courts. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the 2009 murder conviction ruling that verdict was “unreasonable,” and replaced it with the much reduced charge of infanticide.

This month Katrina Effert was issued a three-year suspended sentence after six years in court.


Each country has their own laws, constitutions and courts. But as for me I prefer the good old USofA even with what I may perceive as flaws, it is still the best system in the world.

Our constitution has served us well over the years ... we had a smart group of forefathers. The Double Jeopardy Law is a good law and one that doesn't need to be changed. JMHO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,786,494 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman View Post
Each country has their own laws, constitutions and courts. But as for me I prefer the good old USofA even with what I may perceive as flaws, it is still the best system in the world.
I can agree to that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 06:17 PM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,744,351 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_cuyler View Post
Absolutely not, it's one of the key things our country was founded on--trying to prevent a government from abusing the courts to keep citizens in line.

This wouldn't be just amending the Constitution either, it would basically be removing part of it. If you look back most of the Amendments have added things, not taken them away.


Exactly e_cuyler!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2011, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,017 posts, read 3,267,873 times
Reputation: 8824
No.

Prosecutors should not have someone charged with a crime until they are absolutely sure they can get a conviction in court, and they have one and only one chance to do that. If a prosecutor is inept enough (even in the absence of some kind of future technology) to obtain a conviction with the massive power and resources of the state behind him as well as a jury that probably enters the courtroom thinking that a defendant is already guilty, than that is too bad and no, there should not be another opportunity to charge and bring that person to trial. If prosecutors anticipate that there might be some kind of science in the future that could convict someone (like prior to DNA), since they are so smart and know everything to begin with when they at times even bring an innocent person before a jury, than they should be just as omnipotent and intelligent to know if they wait to charge someone that is guilty, then they will have a better chance of getting a conviction at a later date when some type of science exists to harness more evidence in favor of their position in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,786,494 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw View Post
No.

Prosecutors should not have someone charged with a crime until they are absolutely sure they can get a conviction in court, and they have one and only one chance to do that. If a prosecutor is inept enough (even in the absence of some kind of future technology) to obtain a conviction with the massive power and resources of the state behind him as well as a jury that probably enters the courtroom thinking that a defendant is already guilty, than that is too bad and no, there should not be another opportunity to charge and bring that person to trial. If prosecutors anticipate that there might be some kind of science in the future that could convict someone (like prior to DNA), since they are so smart and know everything to begin with when they at times even bring an innocent person before a jury, than they should be just as omnipotent and intelligent to know if they wait to charge someone that is guilty, then they will have a better chance of getting a conviction at a later date when some type of science exists to harness more evidence in favor of their position in court.
Most crimes have statutes of limitation. Prosecuters can't just wait around in the hopes of some miracle technology, and this isn't what I was suggesting in the OP to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,657,931 times
Reputation: 3967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
But it should not supersede the document that our entire country is built on.
It's you husband, wife, daughter (fill in the blank) which was murdered. John Smith is arrested, tried, and found not guilty.

John Smith walks out of the courthouse, gets on national news and says, "You idiots. I did it." Then leads the police to your daughters body. You, are standing there, crying, and John Smith flips you off, laughs in your face, turns and walks away.

I'm sure your "founding fathers" t-shirt would comfort you well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,017 posts, read 3,267,873 times
Reputation: 8824
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Most crimes have statutes of limitation. Prosecuters can't just wait around in the hopes of some miracle technology, and this isn't what I was suggesting in the OP to begin with.
The only crime that the OP question regarding "double-jeopardy" would apply to would be murder and there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder in all 50 states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top