Isn't it about time this was amended?How is it you can appeal a ruling of the court so many times,yet be found not guilty and never be tried again for that same crime?Prosecutors are becoming more savvy in investigating criminals after they've committed callouse crimes and been found not guilty,pursuing them for other crimes in return.
Has there ever been a serious discussion by lawmakers on this subject?Or are we going to allow people guilty of high profile crimes to capitalize on them with book deals and so on?
2006-11-19 23:06:49 · 2 answers · asked by joecseko 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
But it's okay for criminals to appeal their guilty verdicts?Even admit they played a part in the crime after being found not guilty?
2006-11-19 23:34:28 · update #1
You are really talking about two discrete issues here: the right to appeal and the right not to be placed in double jeopardy. There has been plenty of debate about both. I think it is disgusting what O.J. is doing with his book, but I don't think it is worth throwing away an important constitutional right. If we could be placed in double jeopardy, some people would be subject to harassment by the government. The government has one shot to get it right and it is their burden to carry.
The right to appeal is different. You can appeal from the trial court up to the Supreme Court. The matter may be sent back on remand and go back up again. This could happen any number of times depending on how many times the matter is remanded. However, the Supreme Court has the final say. There is no appeal from the Supreme Court.
The only way we can prevent people from capitalizing on book deals is through market power. Do not buy the book or boycott the publisher.
2006-11-20 04:23:06 · answer #1 · answered by Tara P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. I the purpose of forbidding double jeopardy is to keep the government from being able to try someone over and over again until they are found guilty.
I don't want that.
Yes it is okay for them to appeal their guilty verdicts. Filing an appeal does not mean that they get a new trial. The appeal is reviewed by a higher court to see if the judge, jury, or prosecutor made mistakes. If they did not then the appeal stands.
As far as them admitting guilt after being found not guilty. Well, the people you should be upset with are the prosecutor and the law enforcement agency that investigated the crime.
Really you don't have a question, you just want assurance that your stance is correct.
2006-11-19 23:10:24 · answer #2 · answered by bartmcqueary 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋