if a person was charged with committing a crime and then was acquitted, doesn't it make sense that now, with DNA and other advanced forensic techniques that can prove that he really did commit the crime, he should be retried? this would require a change in the constitution.
we are afforded protection from "double jeopardy," which is having to stand trial more than one time for one offense. but an amendment to the constitution is so very hard to pass!!!
my logic tells me that if a convict can later prove, via such advanced forensic techniques, his innocence and therefore be set free (or retried so that the real culprit pays for the crime, therefore being set free), then:
it only follows that if DNA identification or any other proven modern technology can show that the so-called innocent REALLY AND IN FACT committed the crime that he was acquitted of not having done, that he should stand trial again.
kindly support your opinions. thanks!
2007-02-07 17:23:35 · 6 answers · asked by Louiegirl_Chicago 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
ADDED: i do not propose not limiting the number of times that the actually guilty party who was acquitted may be tried again. i'd say only one time. it may be that he got off on a technicality, therefore, pays nothing in penalties for committing the crime.
i also believe that the DA should not prosecute based on only circumstantial evidence. if i sat on the jury, i'm sure i'd not find the party guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
but say that after being found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence is found that definitely links the acquitted to the crime, and will in fact prove him guily?
in such a case, probably an innocent person is in prison in place of the truly guilty party that had been acquitted. is THAT just and fair? no, it is not. if proof is found after trial that DEFINITELY can show that the acquitted should be put in prison, then he should stand trial based on EVIDENCE.
multiple arrests? well, the police DO have to TRY to arrest the guilty
2007-02-08 15:37:00 · update #1
tampering with evidence would not be possible when the police have secured the evidence. nobody without the proper credentials can even touch the box that contains the evidence. who could "plant" it inside of materials already found to be tainted with it to begin with? it would be THAT evidence that would bring about the next trial, not evidence that had no proof on it when it was finally located.
2007-02-08 15:40:47 · update #2
good idea...they could update some of the laws.....the times are changing
2007-02-07 17:34:53 · answer #1 · answered by Chris B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Founding Fathers weren't as blind to these possibilities as you may think. Of course they didn't know about DNA evidence but they knew about the classic fear of being constantly hounded by the government which was established to protect your right to liberty.
Now; if the prosecutors do their best to prosecute a suspected criminal the first time but fail to convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, why should they then be able to hound that person to eternity? If that were the case then they would never have any reason for giving the first trial their all. Furthermore, the system you propose would basically do away with assuming a party is innocent until proven guilty because constantly hounding them even after a jury trial would mean that the prosecution and law enforcement have automatically assumed guilt and just about nothing will convince them otherwise until they have prosecuted the ''guilty."
Last but not least; would be that no accused could ever rest easy after being found innocent in the courts. Can you imagine living your life in fear that at any moment your freedom could be snatched away because of a technicality from a trial that should have been long over?
Our legal system is built on the principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to let 1 innocent man lose his liberty at the hands of the government. I think I like it the way it is.
2007-02-08 01:42:39 · answer #2 · answered by In 2 Deep 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where do you end the jeopardy? How often are you going to try the guy for the same crime?
Not every crime can be solved so positively with DNA. Often you must rely on the evidence from witnesses, whose memory may be faulty or whose motives might be questionable.
Some years ago a theft took place at a local business, several thousand dollars was taken from the company safe by someone who knew the combination. A woman came forward and told us that her boyfriend, who worked for the company and did have the combination, bragged to her about stealing the money. We arrest the guy. We then find out the woman was lying because the boyfriend dumped her. We release the guy. We then find out the guy has a secret bank account with several thousand dollars in it. He refuses to say where he got it. We arrest the guy. He then offers proof that the money is unreported income from other jobs (he didn't want to pay taxes on it). We release the guy. Further investigation reveals the actual thief and we arrest that guy, who then tells us the orginal guy we've been arresting was his accomplice. We arrest the guy for the third time. Later the thief's story fell apart. He had implicated the other guy trying get a lesser sentence for the theft. We release the othe guy for the third time.
This took place over the space of about six months. Double jeopardy does not take place in arrests, only the trial. The turmoil in this man's life for that six months took a huge toll on him financially and personally. I cann't begin to imagine what three trials would have done to him.
Keep in mind that the people in prison who have been freed by DNA evidence, or some other investigative method; were freed because some well funded private group went to bat for them. Most prisoners do not have the connections or wealth to get this done.
The state has all the resouces to conduct investigations and trials and has the responsibility to do it right the first time.
"Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned"
2007-02-08 01:59:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok lets say I am found not guilty {a law term}. And someone thinks I did the crime, or even has knowledge that I did it but can not prove it. What precludes them from tampering with the evidence once the case is "cold" or even interjecting my DNA into the evidence, then reopening the case? The fact is the government has a duty to provide me a fast and speedy trial considering all the facts. If they can not prove their case how many shots should they get 2, 8 , 98?!? It is bad enough one can be found not guilty in state court but have to defend against a federal court or civil court!
2007-02-08 01:30:23 · answer #4 · answered by Roll_Tide! 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It would take an act of Congress to reverse the 8th amendment. So, do some research on the 8th amendment, then answer your question. Remember, "not guilty" does not mean "innocent".
However, if a criminal court dismisses charges, there is always civil court.
2007-02-08 01:33:00 · answer #5 · answered by puppyfred 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You sound butt ugly.
2007-02-09 00:45:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋