Double jeoparady is putting someone on trial twice for the same crime. So for example if someone is tried for murder and they are found not guilty, they can not be tried again even if they found new evidence that proves them guilty. I don't argree with it, but what do you guys think about it?
2007-12-03 04:18:38 · 9 answers · asked by KK 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If it were legal an accused person could get tried over and over and over again until a jury was found that would convict them. It's better the way it is now.
2007-12-03 04:27:01 · answer #1 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is up to the state to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state doesn't think it has a strong enough case, then it should not go to trial until it does. So if the state fails in it's duty, it is only fair that they not be given as many tries as they want until they get the job done. To do away with double jeopardy would put an accused in fear of being sent to jail at any time, simply because the state may finally find a jury that will agree with them. You get one try, and that's it. As the courts put it, you get only one bite at the apple.
2007-12-03 04:24:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I look at it like this. If a person is found guilty by a jury of his peers, based on the evidence put before them but can get a new trial based on new evidence and then released, if that evidence proves their innocence, then why not the reverse?
2007-12-03 04:42:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imagine being accused of murder and being found not guilty (because in my example you didn't do it) but you always had to deal with the looming specter of getting tried for the crime again. I think it's fair that once a verdict is made in court and no appeals are filed that the matter is over. This also encourages prosecutors to bring their best case forward, since they don't have any do-overs.
2007-12-03 04:31:01 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a cornerstone of our system of justice as defined in the US Constitution. Without it an person would be subject to endless prosecutions for the same allegation.
Another cornerstone of our system of justice is that it better to have an occasional guilty person go free than to have the innocent found guilty.
2007-12-03 04:31:36 · answer #5 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are ways to retrial someone. Often they will go for a Federal beef like violation of the persons civil rights. Also, they can be sued civilly by the family for wrongful death. Remember OJ and the Goldberg family.
2007-12-03 04:30:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a longstanding legal principle - "one bite at the apple" dating back to possibly the Magna Carta. See the Magna Carta article on wikipedia for more information.
2007-12-03 05:44:23 · answer #7 · answered by Barry C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have always wondered why a convicted criminal can appeal a conviction and possibly be found not guilty but cannot be tried again, and found guilty, if new evidence is found to prove guilt. Seems rather one-sided to me.
2007-12-03 04:26:52 · answer #8 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The point is to not keep harassing someone who may very well be innocent.
It was also a good movie.
2007-12-03 04:27:07 · answer #9 · answered by anw122 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋