Fcx x v x bx v xv x bvcxv v c v vcx cx x cx vc vx v x v x vx bv c c vv v v xc cv x v vc cv c c cv vc bv v c v b c bcc c c c bc
It's ridiculous to even consider putting somebody to trial twice. Once you are found innocent, you have the right to remain innocent. If a jury honestly finds somebody innocent, you are innocent. End of story. There should be no changes to this law as it is important. Not to mention, if this law was put into place, then legal defense teams could take advantage of the law. They could go to court before they believe their is enough evidence that supports their case. Double jeopardy shouldn't be abandoned.
In order to keep the judicial system in check, it is important to have laws that motivate attorneys, judges and juries to insure their jobs are done properly and completely. If the prosecution believes it has a legitimate case against an accused criminal, it should do everything in its power to convince the jury of this during the first trial. Trials cost tax payer money and sloppy prosecution should not be a reason for citizens to have to continue to pay until attorneys "do their jobs right." If a jury of one's peers finds the accused not guilty, then he or she should be acquitted.
No, double jeopardy should not be done away with as it is a very important legal precedent. To be able to try a person for the same crime twice, regardless of innocence or guilt being established the previous time, would be a grave violation of that person's rights. Therefore, double jeopardy should be here to stay.