2006-11-15 05:48:33 · 7 answers · asked by cmsb705 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Too many issues to open that can of worms. However, there are some loopholes in the current system, for example it may be possible to bring different charges for the same crime like manslaughter instead of murder, depends on your luck with the judge since much of law today is judicial discretion & bench precedent. It a person gets off and then confesses (on tape, provable), if that person testified at the trial and said they were innocent, s/he could be charged with perjury among other things. It would be very foolish to confess though, because even if the person gets off legally, there are still civil lawsuits and consequences that are not so easily dismissed.
2006-11-15 06:16:03 · answer #1 · answered by AliceG 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boy...that's a tough one. The first thought that came to my mind was one of logistics and the realities of how backlogged our court system already is. Could you imagine if this was allowed? The money-grubbing lawyers would have a field day because they could continually try to regurgitate cases. So in terms of feasibility, I'd say "no way", but in terms of right and wrong, it's much tougher. Ideally, the most important thing is to get things correct and have justice served.
2006-11-15 05:54:35 · answer #2 · answered by DGS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the UK the double jepordy laws have been scrapped completely for that exact reason.
There are so many new cases where new DNA type evidence can show that some people were wrongly cleared.
See link.
2006-11-15 05:52:09 · answer #3 · answered by rchlbsxy2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the prosecution brings a weak case and loses, that should be that for that jurisdiction. Maybe the feds can get em on civil rights or some such.
2006-11-15 05:53:54 · answer #4 · answered by David B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As it stands now, you can re-trial people for a crime if it is deemed that new, usable evidence is found. You can't eliminate double jeopardy because then people could be re-charged over and over again, with no new evidence, until they get convicted.
2006-11-15 05:57:39 · answer #5 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
interior the u.s., they couldn't be two times charged with the "similar offense." notwithstanding, if the act constitutes both a state crime and a federal crime, or a criminal offense in 2 diverse states, the fellow should be prosecuted in yet another jurisdiction for the crimes dedicated in that jurisdiction. In situations of homicide, the killing is a contravention of state regulation, notwithstanding it ought to also be a federal offense with reference to the civil rights of the sufferer, or the homicide ought to have had factors of two diverse states. If that were so, then there should be federal prosecution or a prosecution in a 2d state.
2016-10-16 09:02:19 · answer #6 · answered by konen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. no, it shouldn't be waved. know what? if someone is guilty and are found not guilty, the cops failed, the prosecution failed. the burden of proof is on them. they should learn how to do their jobs.
2006-11-15 05:57:40 · answer #7 · answered by practicalwizard 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋