Should we try a person twice? I mean like the case of O.J. Simpson? It would be double jeopardy?

Answer 1

the first trial was a criminal trial....the second one a civil trial! therefore its not double jeopardy!!!

Answer 2

O.J. Simpson's trial was a travesty of justice but the double jeopardy law is a good one. If the D.A. could prosecute anyone
for the same crime as many times as they wanted,it would turn
into persecution instead.

No matter what changes are made in the criminal justice system,there will always be some murderers who go free.

Answer 3

First of all, you must understand just what, exactly, double jeopardy is, and is not.

If I were acquitted of robbing a local convenience store in state court, that would be an end of it--in criminal court at the state level. Even if I later boldly admitted that I was as guilty as Cain, I still couldn't be prosecuted--HOWEVER--I could be sued in civil court by any victims seeking damages for injury (or by anyone with legal standing in a suit for wrongful death, i.e., the surviving spouse, child(ren) parent(s), etc.). Remember, it's much easier to convict in a civil case because the burden of proof is not as stringent as it is in a criminal case. The standard for conviction in a criminal charge is "beyond reasonable doubt," and in a civil case it's merely "the preponderance of evidence." In other words, a jury in a crimnal case must be sure that the perpetrator could have, reasonably, committed the crime--it doesn't mean beyond any doubt at all, just has to satisfy that, given the evidence, a reasonable man or woman would conclude that the person on trial is guuilty. However, in a civil case, the person can be found guilty simply on the evidence at hand: I walked into the convenience store, I shot the individual in the course of a robbery, and he or she was injured and is now seeking compensation for those injuries. I can be found guilty and have to make restitution to the victim, despite the fact that a jury found me innocent of the crime. I know it doesn't sound as if it makes much sense, but that's just how it is.

Another thing to consider is jurisdiction. It's possible to commit a crime that can be tried at both the state and the federal level.

For example, an individual in the military commits a crime. He or she is tried in state court and acquitted. Again, the state cannot prosecute him or her again for the same crime--BUT--he or she may also be subject to either a military court or tried in federal court for the same crime because three jurisdictions are involved: the state, the military, and the federal government.

This, incidentally, is why Timothy Hennis is facing court-martial for the murders of which he was acquitted in a second trial. Despite the new evidence (that's another subject altogether, and another reason a person can be tried again, in some cases, without jeopardy attaching)--in this case better DNA testing--that puts him at the crime scene, his original conviction was overturned when the NC Court of Appeals found errors in his first trial and ordered that he be given a new trial, in which he was acquitted. Therefore, the state of North Carolina cannot try him again for the murders--but since he was on active duty at the time that they occurred, the Army called him back to active duty and is going to court-martial him. This can be done in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which governs the conduct of members of the armed forces at all times--whether on duty or off.

Yeah, it's complicated all right. But that's why attorneys love it.

Answer 4

Double Jeopardy is misapplied. Double Jeopardy, according the the letter of the constitution, occurs when the defendent is facing the death penalty, not mere prison time.

The right of the defendent AND the right of the victim to justice can both be protected by simply requiring significant new evidence before a person can be retried for the same offence.

Answer 5

Yes...In the UK the double jeopardy law was repealed after a woman was murdered by her husband. He was aquitted and afterwards confessed and bragged about the crime he committed. In this case the husband was tried again and then was convicted of his crime.

With double jeopardy, if the defendant is innocent then surely he will found innocent twice. Perhaps the only problem is an innocent person reliving a horrible trial that one does not deserve, but in the interests of justice, it's a good thing...right?

Answer 6

Double Jeopardy is now legal in the UK where a Judge decides that there is sufficient new evidence to render the original verdict questionable. There has already been one conviction for murder under this system where the suspect was originally found not guilty but advances in DNA forensic science subsequently placed the suspect at the scene and demolished his alibi.

The prospect of advances in forensic science resulting in a later re-trial can only act as a deterrent for any would-be criminals and will ensure that victims are not deprived of the justice they deserve.

Answer 7

I dont believe in "Double Jeopardy". I think that if the detectives/cops/etc find new evidence after the trial, even if the person is found not guilty, then the person should be retried... I mean.... Imagine the amount of killers out there who were released..who were really guilty? Is it fair to the rest of us to be forced to live with that?

Answer 8

as quickly as a verdict for that distinctive crime has been rendored, then there could be no added fees positioned against the guy for that individual same crime. So if the guy grew to become into discovered harmless (no longer in charge) of first degree homicide, for the homicide of Joey Bagadonuts, the guy ought to no longer then be tried for accessory, 2nd degree homicide, conspiracy, or the different fee that as we talk pertains to the conviction. so as which would be that.

Answer 9

No. We should stick to the idea that a person should not be tried twice. There is something inherently unfair about that.

Why are we so concerned about OJ? There are lots of murderers out there running free, still killing people.

OJ is just famous, that's all.

Answer 10

Yes it would but in the case you mention it would be justified; the first jury was clearly biased.