why are convicted criminals guaranteed appeals but prosecution is not allowed to appeal an "innocent" verdict?

Question

It does not seem logical that convicted criminals are allowed to appeal to a higher court, but the prosecution is stopped by the double jeopardy clause. Should it not be that if prosecution has uncovered new evidence that they should be able to re-try someone for a crime that they had been previously acquitted of?

Answer 1

The burden of proof is on the state, not the individual. You are innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. Therefore, if the state has strong evidence, you should be convicted, if they do not, you should be acquitted. This is done so a majority does not oppress the minority. In most cases, the state (DA office) has more resources than the accused, so they should present a compelling case for the guilt of a person accused of a crime. The system provides for the individual to appeal the decision. The misconception is that an appeal results in a new trial, it does not, if the defense cannot proved error from the prosecution on how the trial was conducted, the verdict is reaffirmed. You are probably thinking about death row inmates that appeal their verdicts, well, their life is at stake, and if the state is asking for the death penalty, it is better to have so many appeals than to put an innocent person to death, the ultimate price in our system of law.

Answer 2

You already know the answer--you hinted at it. The Constitution guarantees that no one will be prosecuted twice for the same crime. That doesn't prevent the prosecution from charging the same person with new charges if new evidence is uncovered. But they cannot be the same charges as previously filed. Conversely, if a person is convicted of a crime the appeals process is to allow the defense a chance to free an innocent person. There is a long standing tradition in law that it is better that the guilty go free than for the innocent to suffer the punishment. I would say I agree with that. You enter into the area of justice in the philosophical sense and mercy and truth and all of those sticky problems when you start determining people's fate and future in a court of law. Many scholars of the law have always held that, while not perfect, this system does generally send the bad guys to jail and lets the good guys go home.

Answer 3

Let's say a prosecutor or the government has a personal thing against you, they take you to court you go "not guilty" but then the prosecutor try again, and again and again like forever; get the point?

That law is not to protect the guilty but to protect those that are innocent. Most of the time when someone is declared "innocent" he is really innocent (police and gov accuse innocent people all the time by "mistake") so why to keep charging him forever for the same crime.

Of course some criminals take advantage of this but is not fair to put an innocent man in jail because the prosecutor got psycho and tried like 20 times the same charge.

Besides not all criminal are guaranteed a granted appeal; they can appeal but they can get a "no" if the show no valid arguments. Only death penalty cases are granted automatic appeal to make sure everythin was done by the book.

Answer 4

You are still a student in secondary school, I hope, and still learning. If so, fair question.

First, a practical answer: When there IS new evidence, e.g. DNA, prosecutors DO have the ability to bring certain cases again. For instance, the old 1960s civil rights worker cases that they couldn't nail Klansmen for are now fair game again thanks to DNA technology that didnt exist the first time around. However, the charges have to be changed due to double-jeopardy provision - but it works.

Second, on a philosophical level: The US legal system derives from English Common Law, roots of which are in the Magna Carta back in 1215. You can (and should) look up info on the Magna Carta, but one of the important principles that derives from it is the idea of noble fallibility - meaning that those in control of governments and societies are and must be accountable. Habeas corpus is directly connected to this. I could go on and on, so let's return to your question and apply the ideas here....

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the buzz of our legal system, right? Prosecutors have a preponderance of resources and evidence (supposedly) at their disposal to pursue a given case. The defendent is at the mercy of prosecutorial (which is really authoritative or governmental) power. It is up to the prosecution (government) to make a case that a peer panel (jury) finds believeable. If the case is not believeable, the prosecution has failed to meet it's burden...

... AND THAT IS THE KEY. The burden of proof rests on the accuser, NOT the accused. For one who is accused to be continually pursued by a prosecution would be an abuse of state power that is precisely what the Magna Carta was structured to mitigate.

Clear as mud? You'll have to do some research to get an answer that will satisfy you, I think.

Answer 5

The government shouldn't bring a case unless it expects a conviction.

And when the government does decide to prosecute a person, it has virtually unlimited resources at its disposal to do so. It doesn't have to worry about paying lawyers by the hour, paying investigators, or hiring experts. The defendant, on the other hand, has to either pay for a lawyer out of his/her own pocket (as well as pay for any other expenses) or has to rely on a public defender (whose reimbursement is usually fixed or not very generous). It's hardly a level playing field.

I agree that allowing guilty parties to escape punishment is a very bad thing, but it doesn't seem to happen very often. The Fifth Amendment, which contains the double jeopardy clause, has been around for over 200 years, and it seems to have worked pretty well on the whole.

Answer 6

Historically, the jury is viewed as the guardian of the people against a potentially oppressive government. The prosecutor and judge represent the GOVERNMENT; the defense attorney represents the accused. The JURY represents the community and the defense of people's rights; and especially an INDIVIDUAL's rights when he has been accused by the Government.

Because of abuses by government against juries in England and colonial America, since the trial of Peter Zenger in the early 1700's, a jury has ALWAYS had the right to judge BOTH: 1.) the FACTS of a case and 2.) whether the LAW being used is just and being fairly applied. (Most judges today will say that #2 is incorrect, but THEY are incorrect.) The JURY's decision also became the FINAL word - no authority can question it or reverse a "not guilty" finding (as used to happen before the Zenger trial). With the jury's "not guilty" decision being FINAL and UNQUESTIONABLE, it would make no sense to allow the prosecutor to appeal with the unlimited resources of government behind him. The jury's "not guilty" verdict prevents such abuse.

Again, see: www.FIJA.ORG
("Fully-Informed Jury Association")


See www.FIJA.ORG

Answer 7

The answer is quite simple. The adversary system presumes the innocense of the defendant. Period. That presumption is made final by a verdict of innocense.

Also, it would be a great wast of judicial time and the money of the tax payers, to take a second shot at someone found innocent. The prosecution should get it right the first time. They should have their ducks in a row, so to speak. I know that I don't pay taxes with the expectation that the officials who are paid from my taxes will do their job poorly. I expect them to do it right the first time. Doing it right does not always mean conviction, but it does mean efficiency.

Answer 8

It's always the case that the balance of doubt is angled in favor of the accused or even the convicted.....it's just the way it works in a civilized society.

Remember the individual is alone against the power of the state, whether that individual is a good or a bad guy doesn't really make any difference.....the law treats them all the same because that's the way the law is, universal.

Double jeopardy limitations are imposed in some countries but in the US it's limited by the 5th Amendment.

Answer 9

if the prosecution does not present enough of a case to get a guilty verdict then that's their problem , everyone gets their day in court , and the double jeopardy clause is there just for that reason .

Answer 10

These safeguards are in place because the police are in control of the investigation and are therefore at an advantage already. The system is designed to help reduce the occurance of common abuses against individuals.