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 09-22-2011, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw View Post
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.
I'm aware there is no statute for murder and murder isn't the only crime that forensic evidence is used for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Of course you do. You detest everything. Until it happens to you.
You can't think of it in those terms "if it happens to you"........ Your emotions cloud your judgement, this is why family members of victims aren't allowed to sit on the jury of the accused.

I agree with everything Magritte25 said to you on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2012, 05:26 PM
 
1 posts, read 626 times
Reputation: 12
i know some are set in stone about no changes to the ideas of the founding fathers but they were not all knowing. i mean that is why we have had amendments to the constitution. there was no way link dna to defendents back then and they never even knew that would be possible in the future.

does this mean i think it should be done away with? absolutely not. but it can be revised aka amended. it CAN be specifically for murder cases at first anyway. it CAN also be only one extra trial if undeniable evidence arises. a short trail where all evidence must be gathered before anyone can even be bothered with it. there can even be a panel of people that must unanimously vote on whether or not it is undeniable evidence.

definitely worth taking a look at
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 08:24 AM
 
Location: West Egg
2,161 posts, read 1,665,497 times
Reputation: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
But you have to remember, at the time of the founding of this country, we didn't have near the technology that we do now. At THAT time, I believe the law was appropriate, but, now, I think under certain circumstances, exceptions should be able to be made.
So?

It's not as if the founders were unfamiliar with the possibility of evidence demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt existing but not being found by the time of trial was certainly real and known then.

There's a remedy for that -- don't file charges until sufficient evidence for a conviction exists.

You've got it backwards. If anything, a comparison to the 1780s (when Amendment V was drafted and submitted to the states for ratification) underscores how much the founders were willing to sacrifice to prevent double jeopardy -- the comparitive paucity of relevant technology of the age made convictions all that much more difficult compared to today. No pringerprints, no DNA, no hair analysis, no blood-typing, and on and on. With today's professional law enforcement and the plethora of tools they have to determine who is responsible for a crime, why should we throw out a restriction that the founders, will almost none of the advantages of modern law enforcement, were not only willing but overwhelmingly insistent on implementing and then preserving?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Ohio
19,949 posts, read 14,256,616 times
Reputation: 16129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions View Post
There's a remedy for that -- don't file charges until sufficient evidence for a conviction exists.
Why?

That takes all the fun out of it.

It's much more exciting to botch the investigation, coerce witnesses, fabricate evidence, and then try the case in a media circus to get a "media conviction" before you even go to trial, and then rush everything so you capitalize on it for personal and political gain.

Grandstanding to get votes....

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Do you think that exceptions should be made in extreme cases where new forensic evidence is discovered that directly implicates someone who has previously been found not guilty?
No, never.

Exactly what has changed in the criminal process?

Absolutely nothing whatsoever has changed. We use deductive reasoning based on evidential facts. We need evidence to place the defendant at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. That has not changed and never will change. What has changed is how you go about getting that evidence. There was a time when you couldn't get fingerprints from certain types of materials, like plastics. You want to open up those cases too?

As previously pointed out, if you don't have the evidence to prove your case, then you do not go to trial. It doesn't get much simpler than that. There is no Statute of Limitations on Capital Crimes, and where you have identified an actual named suspect or are actively searching for them, there is no Statute of Limitations for any felony crime.

You commit a simple larceny or burglary and you think all you have to do is wait 7 years and you're home free? That is true if and only if you have never been identified (it's a little more complicated than that -- but that's the short-story -- it falls under "frauds").

Also, it defies logic and other laws. You cannot retroactively apply a law that was recently enacted (ex post facto), so why should be able to retroactively apply new methods of evidence gathering?

The whole point is that the burden of proof has always rested with the government, and the government being all powerful and having unlimited resources, should be made to prove its case. We do that to prevent the government from abusing its power (and it will -- guaranteed).

Criminally...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 09:11 PM
 
9,216 posts, read 9,289,216 times
Reputation: 28896
Quote:
Absolutely nothing whatsoever has changed. We use deductive reasoning based on evidential facts. We need evidence to place the defendant at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. That has not changed and never will change. What has changed is how you go about getting that evidence. There was a time when you couldn't get fingerprints from certain types of materials, like plastics. You want to open up those cases too?

As previously pointed out, if you don't have the evidence to prove your case, then you do not go to trial. It doesn't get much simpler than that. There is no Statute of Limitations on Capital Crimes, and where you have identified an actual named suspect or are actively searching for them, there is no Statute of Limitations for any felony crime.

You commit a simple larceny or burglary and you think all you have to do is wait 7 years and you're home free? That is true if and only if you have never been identified (it's a little more complicated than that -- but that's the short-story -- it falls under "frauds").

Also, it defies logic and other laws. You cannot retroactively apply a law that was recently enacted (ex post facto), so why should be able to retroactively apply new methods of evidence gathering?

The whole point is that the burden of proof has always rested with the government, and the government being all powerful and having unlimited resources, should be made to prove its case. We do that to prevent the government from abusing its power (and it will -- guaranteed).
I am stunned. I think for the very first time, I agree with what you have written.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
1,545 posts, read 2,289,640 times
Reputation: 1338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
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...
"Put yourself in the victim's shoes..."

Not a very good argument. Convictions have been thrown out on appeal when the prosecutors use this tactic.
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