The 5th prohibits any person being tried for the same crime twice. So if OJ Simpson admitted to killing his wife, there is nothing the judicial system could do about it except maybe charging him with perjury or amending the Constitution.
2006-06-26 08:04:07 · 5 answers · asked by Ms Bleu 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Grateful if you could say why you feel the way you do?
2006-06-26 08:10:48 · update #1
Double Jeopardy is a fundamental principle in American jurisprudence. It is not true that he would not be tried again. CA could not do it but if the facts merit it the federal government can bring charges (usually deprivation of civil rights). There is a safety valve built in to our structure of government. Double Jeopardy is commonly misunderstood it is a good thing and in all of my experience has never precluded someone from being punished where punishment is warranted. That being said I am sure it has happened but in such a small instances that abandoning it is not warranted.
2006-06-26 08:27:15 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Double Jeopardy came into effect after several cases were tried in local courts by a jury and and the person was found innocent. Then later a federal court would try the same person for the same offence in an effort to get the person convicted.
The idea behind the Double Jeopardy law is to keep a person that has already been found innocent from being tried again, just to try to get a conviction because the police didn't like the original aquital.
2006-06-26 15:12:33 · answer #2 · answered by David T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. This law places the burden on the state to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt THE FIRST TIME. Otherwise, the state could torment people for their entire lives. Now, if the state can't prove it the first time, what makes you think they could do it the second, third, or fourth time? Sure, occassionally new evidence will come into play, but not often. The most important thing here is that the accused was proclaimed "not guilty" the first time around; why should anyone have the right to go back and say that verdict wasn't good enough?
2006-06-26 15:13:32 · answer #3 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, because there would be nothing to prevent innocent people from being harassed endlessly. There has to be a point at which decisions are final, or else there can be no legal certainty.
2006-06-26 15:11:59 · answer #4 · answered by James 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, this is a good law.
2006-06-26 15:08:47 · answer #5 · answered by happytraveler 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋