Should The "Double-Jeopardy" law be revised or re-visited??? (case, evidence)
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.
This is something I was thinking about. When the founding fathers designed the constitution and laws such as the "Double-Jeopardy" law, things like DNA and forensic evidence weren't known about, nor did we have the advanced technology that we do today. 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?
Ooh, that's a dang good question. My first reaction is, "yes", but I have a hard time with messing with our freedoms. (I am really hoping people do NOT read in to THAT one and accuse me of all sorts of ridiculousness that I did not say.)
Gonna have to mull that one over. Very good question.
Changing the double jeopardy clause would require not only a vote of Congress, but would require 3/4's of the states to ratify the amendment as well. Whether or not its a good idea (I don't think it is) its a waste of time to think about it. Its not going to pass all those hurdles. Heck, this country couldn't even pass an amendment that was going to guarantee women equal rights. Does anyone remember the ERA debacle of the 1970's?
Let's assume you did change it. Should the state get two, three, four, or unlimited attempts to prosecute someone for the same crime? I mean pretty soon a prosecutor might post a sign over his door that says "We'll get you sooner or later!".
Changing the double jeopardy clause would require not only a vote of Congress, but would require 3/4's of the states to ratify the amendment as well. Whether or not its a good idea (I don't think it is) its a waste of time to think about it. Its not going to pass all those hurdles. Heck, this country couldn't even pass an amendment that was going to guarantee women equal rights. Does anyone remember the ERA debacle of the 1970's?
Let's assume you did change it. Should the state get two, three, four, or unlimited attempts to prosecute someone for the same crime? I mean pretty soon a prosecutor might post a sign over his door that says "We'll get you sooner or later!".
My feeling is, yes, it should be done. But, I think that the burden of proof should be EXTREMELY high. Only with the discovery of new Forensic evidence or DNA evidence that directly implicates the individual should a new trial ever even be considered. Though I suppose that would lead to problems with bitter, corrupted prosecuters planting evidence after the fact because of "sour grapes"
It usually doesn't matter. For example, if someone was "wrongfully acquitted" in a state court, then strong evidence of guilt later comes up, investigators can usually cook up some kind of "federal hook" involving state lines, which allows the federal government to take the same case to trial.
Double jeopardy does not apply to "separate sovereigns" - states, federal courts, and Indian courts. Even if there is no federal prosecution, each state is also considered a separate sovereign.
Also, there is a whole area of legal controversy over "collateral" charges that might be brought later on, if a prosecution on the "main" charge fails. Eg, "conspiracy to commit" or similar accusations.
If new technological advances in forensics allow releases for those originally found guilty and wrongfully imprisoned, it should also imprison those aquitted when forensics can without a doubt prove their guilt.
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.