Double Jeopardy

[Mitsuki]

I was watching CSI: Miami the other night and what an interesting episode. Double Jeopardy. Should we scrap the rule due to the fact that people are acquitted for the wrong reasons? For instance, a person may be charged for trial, declared to be “innocent” in the end, but weeks later new evidence (no matter how strong) regarding the case sprouts up. However, that person cannot be charged again. He can admit in public that he is indeed in the wrong, but he cannot be tried twice for the same crime, no matter how serious. That is the law.

So, your thoughts? I'll post mine later.

 

[SapphireStar]

I seen this in the film of the same name with Tommy Lee Jones. I think its a bobbins law as how many times can it really occur?

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

It's a pretty retarded idea really. Just because they were found not to be guilty, and yet at a later date they admit to it/are proved to have done it, why the hell does that mean that they should escape punishment? The word "justice" is absent here...

 

[Davey Gaga]

Mitsuki, which series/episode was that? xD

And no, it's entirely questionable. Sure, the accused can scream "harassment" over and over again but, frankly, that shouldn't even be taken into account during a murder investigation. Priorities, people.

 

[Mitsuki]

It was titled, "Double Jeopardy", where a man was accused of murdering his wife, but got away with it due to "Double Jeopardy". I won't spoil the story, but you know how CSI:Miami has great twists...

Anyway, I honestly think that the system is ridiculous. A killer is a killer, plain and simple. If there is evidence that directs the said person as a murderer, why not simply re-open the case and deal with it in a justified way? Or is double jeopardy exempting justice…?

Yes, I am aware of the fact that some cases are appealed (but it has to be an extremely serious offense), however, it takes a long period of time before things are finally in order.

But when it comes to the law in general, it’s stupid. That’s like positively knowing that the person is a murderer, but because the case was in their favor (due to very good lawyers among other things) the murderer would get away with it. And then when new evidence is placed right in front of everyone the next day, they can’t do anything about it because double jeopardy’s in the way.

People should put logic and common sense in priority, not laws that may possibly protect the killers.

 

[Vanilla]

Actually, I think its a good idea, if and only if the accused is given proper judgement and the case is properly guided. Judging from what I see, those who are given a 'not guilty' judgement are actually the ones who are 'guilty' and this is unfair. I believe this is only applied to people who can differentiate 'good' and 'bad' and not those who can turn the tables upside down.

(Did my post makes sense?)

 

[Warbsywoo]

Well, the only reason why it exists is because the government, believe it or not, actually doesn't want to get the wrong people into jail.

It's just one of those devices that prevents and/or reduces the chances of throwing actually innocent people into the slammer. It's not perfect and sure there are guilty people who escape the law because of it, but...that's unusual. (according to my teacher and studies)

 

[StrifeC]

I really dont know. I'm kinda on both sides of the battle. I think that if no lawyer can put the bad guy behind bars then what ever they will do it next time.

But I also dont think that its fair beause if the evidance is strong enough to convict the person then they deserve to be in jail. So yea I'm iffy on all this. It just depends on how serious the crime is I believe.