The Double Jeopardy Rules should be terminated.
Debate Rounds (3)
Double Jeopardy Rule- n. The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted. (http://www.answers.com...)
I hope my judges will acknowledge that this is an extremely difficult debate to argue as con, so I hope you judge who had the better argument.
To commence the debate, I will begin with my first points:
1.The prosecution must make as strong of a case as possible with the double jeopardy rule enabled. Without the double jeopardy rule, the quality of the instigation would be greatly diminished because the police would not have to do as thorough of a search, simply because they are under no pressure to investigate further to guarantee a strong case and make sure they have their man. With the double jeopardy rule, the prosecution is forced to provide the most crucial argument, while the police are obliged to present the most thorough investigation. Without a double jeopardy rule, the reduced quality cases would increase the risk of convicting the wrong man. To further enhance my defense, we will presume in a hypothetical situation that the authorities have the correct criminal. The increased chance of acquittal allows the accused to go free, at least until more evidence is found to support the prosecutors' position. Otherwise, the guilty are set free while the innocent are prosecuted
2.An individual has inadequate assets to properly find evidence that will clear him, when he is charged for the alleged crime. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to provide a sufficient defense, while the state has an immense amount of resources on hand to provide a case which is almost impossible to defend against without a lawyer. That's why you are innocent until proven guilty. Without the double jeopardy rule, the already unbalanced situation is thrown awry and is even further favored in the states case. Repeated trial cases induce a greater risk of wrongful conviction. The innocent are caught while the guilty offend.
3.Termination of the double jeopardy rule will make the innocent weary. Even after acquittal, they can be charged for a crime they did not commit. After accused, the victim must live knowing that further prosecution can be made and they may never return to daily life as it was before the trial. The state would be allowed to additionally harass an individual until the jury found the defendant guilty. This creates a completely unfair advantage for the state in trial, as they can persecute until the charged is "proven" guilty.
4.In a murder trial, it would be difficult to find a jury unaware of the previous trial, and thus unbiased. The information of the crime must be new and fresh in order to be judged fairly, and the application of the double jeopardy rule ensures a more fair and honest jury.
Most people ask, "Well doesn't the double jeopardy rule then allow the guilty to roam free?" Sure, in a very rare and small amount of trials, and personally I feel that is a very small price to pay for the amount of guilty people it keeps in and the amount of innocent people it keeps out.
The submission of the double jeopardy rule was obviously given thought by the government, and wouldn't have been implemented without valid reasons for doing so. I therefore, through a simple risk analysis, believe that unless there are more benefits by abolishing the double jeopardy rule, it should continue its role in our government today.
http://www.speech-topics-help.com... <-(thanks for the idea)
Honestly, I originally was pro for the destruction of the rule, after some research, I vote con, and that it should stay the way it is.
Your new opponent, Julius Caesar XD.
Double Jeopardy violates the constitution.
According to the fifth amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This being stated, Double Jeopardy violates the United States constitution.
and that your true argument was 4 sentences long, not including the definition of amendment 5. This being said, I will try my best to provide an ample argument explaining why amendment 5 does NOT make the double jeopardy rule unconstitutional.
So, here we go:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;"
How is this making the double jeopardy rule unconstitutional? The double jeopardy rule, as I will restate it in my own words, means that a person can NOT face a court twice for the same crime. Here you are simply saying that no person can be held for a capital crime unless upon the accusation of a grand jury. So, obviously that statement does not disprove anything about how the double jeopardy rule is unconstitutional, or rather, the double jeopardy rule agrees with everything in the statement and heeds no contradiction.
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"
Uh… Doesn't this PROVE the existence of the double jeopardy rule? You clearly copy and pasted this amendment without reading it. You are saying that no subjects can be placed twice for the same offense, so doesn't that match my definitions? Technically, you aided in my argument. :o
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This doesn't relate to the rule at all.
"This being stated, Double Jeopardy violates the United States constitution."
You just proved that it came from amendment 5, so wouldn't that make it constitutional?
Please make your next argument disprove mine.
With kind regards,
favored101 forfeited this round.
-I will simply use my last argument as a conclusion of the main points stated above.
>>The prosecution must make as strong of a case as possible.<<
Basically, with the double jeopardy rule, the prosecution only has one chance to prove the defendant guilty. Without the rule, the police would not be as thorough, nor would the prosecutors present a decent case because they know that if they fail, they can simply try again once new evidence is collected.
>>An individual usually does not have proper resources to clear him, while the state does<<
This means that the state has an unfair advantage over the defendant. Without the double jeopardy rule, the court could continue calling an individual back to court as soon as the police find more evidence. This creates an immensely difficult situation for the defendant, as he can never "win" in the end.
>>The innocent are left weary without the rule protecting them.<<
If an innocent person had his/her case acquitted, he/she would have to live the rest of his/her life wondering if they will be called back and convicted.
>>In extreme cases, such as murder, it is difficult to find an unbiased jury.<<
If "George" was innocent, and was charged for killing "Bill" and his original trial had been acquitted, it would be all over the news. Now, if "George" got called back because the prosecution found more evidence, it would be increasingly difficult to find a jury that hadn't seen the story, and wasn't biased. [Sorry if the names offended anyone, I was just trying to come up with two names and those pooped up first.]
Additionally, amendment five affirms the constitutionality of the double jeopardy rule, and proves that the government had placed the double jeopardy rule with a lot of thought, and it should not be terminated unless more good comes than harm.
-Thus you should vote con!!!!!! Thank you!!
I would quickly like to end my debate by stating this: If you are biased and feel that the double jeopardy rule should be terminated, please vote on who provided the better argument, Thanks!!!
Thank you very much favored 101 for accepting my debate.
favored101 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.