Amazon.com Widgets
  • It should work both ways.

    If new evidence can overturn a guilty verdict - then new evidence should be cause for a retrial that could overturn a not guilty verdict. Case in point, O. J. Simpson should have been found guilty but a star struck jury released him. There is new evidence that he committed the murders but he cannot be retried.

  • Justice should be served!

    Isn't of the reasons we have laws is to ensure that justice prevails? If new evidence surfaces and the likelihood of conviction is high then a retrial should be allowed for those persons that are alleged to have committed an offense. An example is the Amanda Knox case, if she did indeed commit the alleged crime and is not extradited because the terms of the extradition treaty between America and Italy preventing Americans being extradited due to double jeopardy, then justice would not be served for the family of the deceased.

  • Double or nothing

    Murderers are running around free because of this rule. There is evidence for every case some just takes longer to find. If the jury decides the suspect is innocent and the fallowing day the suspect admits to murdering the person, nobody can do anything about it because of this stupid rule. Murderers are let free and live a life when the took someone else's just because we can not appeal them twice. Get rid of a rule that is letting criminals free.

  • Why not?

    By allowing the double jeopardy rule, we are allowing, in some cases, people to "get away with it," as in, whatever they had done. You could argue that not all cases this happens, as a lot are innocent, but even if a few people were free after they had mass-murdered, then a lot of lives would be at stake.
    The reason that (most of us) follow the law is because of our respect for it. Otherwise we wouldn't watch the speed limits and things like that. But when convicts get off on a noticeable technicality, evading the punishments, it definitely shakes our confidence of the law, and puts more people to the impression that they can get away with their crimes.

  • New Evidence!!!!

    What if some new evidence is found that might be able to overturn the verdict? Take the Casey Anthony case for example. They recently found evidence on her computer that "efficient ways to kill" was searched on Google. It was also searched before her daughter Kaylee was killed. I think we should be able to have a new trial for things like this. This information might overturn the verdict!!!

  • Yes, I feel we should do away with double jeopardy because it doesn't really make sense.

    We should not institute the double jeopardy rule because it doesn't allow people to have a say in justice. People need to have a more open mind and be more adept to changes in the government practices. Look, we have our flaws in this country, but it does not need to go through double jeopardy.

    Posted by: BoundlessHomer49
  • YES! Murderers admitting their crime can't go to jail!

    There have been murderers that admitted to murder after they were pronounced innocent. A good example is the Emmett Till case because his murderers were innocent to the jury. After the case they stole their story to the media and admitted to killing the young boy. Because of Double Jeopardy, they couldn't go to jail. Now imagine they could of killed another person.

  • I believe that we should do away with the double jeopardy rule because there are times when it allows a person to get away with murder.

    I believe that we should get rid of the double jeopardy rule. This rule has enabled people to get away with murder in the past and it will happen again. So much depends on the quality of legal representation that a defendant gets and sometimes juries just do not get it right. Murder is such a horrible crime that if evidence comes out after a mistrial, a new trial should be scheduled. It is incomprehensible to me that we have this rule where murder is concerned.

    Posted by: R0d0Ferdy
  • Yes, that is a bad rule, a technicality that lets people go free who shouldn't.

    I think that is a bad rule. If someone gets let off on a technicality or by some other means, and new evidence is found, then the person should be tried again. It makes no sense that if you get let off for some odd reason, that you cant' be tried again when there is a better chance at a conviction. It's like thumbing one's nose at the law when this happens.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • The double jeopardy rule needs to be done away with to stop criminals from getting away with crimes.

    The double jeopardy rule provides the chance for criminals to be let of on technicalities. I personally think that a if there is sufficient evidence that a crime was committed, double jeopardy should not apply. It should be possible for a new trial to commence with new evidence even if the defendant was found not guilty previously.

    Posted by: tahleaunreal
  • No, Modern DNA testing can handle the majority of cases.

    The majority of cases can be solved if DNA is in the area of a crime. Wtih modern technology, security cameras, DNA testing, and more, we can safely say that a good number of crimes can be solved without having to go through the system over and over again. If the same case needs to be put through the system again because of problems, then there is obviously not enough hard evidence to convict them anyways.

  • Double jeopardy puts pressure on the district attorney to make sure they try the case correctly the first time.

    The double jeopardy rule can be bad in some situations. But, in the majority of situations, it still serves the purpose it was meant for. It puts pressure on the state to do the trial right. Without it, a district attorney would have no reason to make sure they have all their evidence in order. They could just take anyone to trial right away and, if they end up wrong or aren't ready, then they could just do it all over again. The rule makes sure they prepare and are ready, before they go ahead with trial.

    Posted by: KnownEvan
  • The double jeopardy rule ensures fairness in the criminal justice system.

    Allowing double jeopardy means allowing the government to repeatedly prosecute suspected criminals, even after they have been tried. Allowing litigants, especially the government in a criminal trial, to keep trying until they win ensures an unending stream of cases to clog our courts, and it undermines guarantees of fairness within the system. If a suspect is acquitted 49 times and convicted on the 50th try, there is strong reason to believe the conviction is unwarranted. By requiring the government to put on its best case first, we promote efficiency and fairness, and ensure that the government cannot harass citizens through unending trials.

    Posted by: HaplessBritt39
  • The prohibition of double jeopardy prevents someone from being endlessly on trial for an offense, even after they've been cleared of it once, allowing the legal system to be abused.

    If a person were allowed to be tried for the same offense more than once, it would be possible to abuse the legal system and keep someone tied up defending themselves perpetually. If someone was accused of robbing a store, and the jury found them innocent, the prosecution could keep trying them for decades, until they found a jury that convicted them or simply ruin their life by keeping them involved in the court battle forever. As it is, if you're found innocent once, you're innocent, and you're done having to defend yourself legally. The number of people that abuse the double jeopardy system to stay free, after it becomes clear they were guilty in the first place, is a small enough number that it's worth it to keep the system in place to protect the many people that could be affected by abusing the ability to litigate endlessly.

    Posted by: GrievingPhil36
  • We should keep the rule of double jeopardy, because we might end up harassing people by trying them again and again for one crime.

    If a person is found innocent, they can now go on with their lives. But that might not be able to happen without double jeopardy being in place. We might continue bothering them and interfering with their lives, by having multiple trials. It would tie up the justice system also, and make it take even longer to get crimes tried that are more important.

    Posted by: darcyska
  • I oppose getting rid of the double jeopardy rule; it's there for a reason.

    The double jeopardy rule was put into effect for a reason. It keeps our court system as fair as possible. If there were constantly new juries, there would likely constantly be new outcomes for a case and nothing would ever be resolved. I think that no matter what, we will not ever be 100% right on justice for crimes, but I think that this keeps us as close as we can get.

    Posted by: boobop
  • The double jeopardy rule is in place to protect people in the court system.

    There are cases when people are an correctly represented and where they can be taken advantage of. In order to have an efficient, fair system people need to have rights. This rule enables people to be protected and is essential to the system of government. If this did not exist then people could be pushed through the system and possibly be made to pay for something that they did not do.

    Posted by: IentChick
  • No, we should never do away with the double jeopardy rule because it protects the accused.

    We need to keep the double jeopardy law because without it, the police could subject an accused person to intimidation and costly legislation for the rest of their life, whether guilty or not. The accused has to have this basic right.

    Posted by: JeffP4ri5
  • Please! Please! Please! Everyone read the Bill of Rights. The 5th and 14th (yes, the 14th is incorporated) Constitutional Amendments

    Thank you James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, (1791), for the 1st Amendment. Opinions vary, and a pat on the back for those of us who voice ours!!
    The Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The principle is one of the oldest in Western civilization, having roots in ancient Greek and Roman law. Nevertheless, the clause is one of the least understood in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has done little to remove the confusion.
    As a general proposition, the Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to criminal cases and consists of three separate constitutional protections. First, it protects against a second criminal prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. Second, it protects against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Finally, it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.
    Difficulties arise in determining when a new prosecution is for the “same offense.” The issue is presented when the same criminal act or transaction violates two separate statutes. In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court explained that in such circumstances the critical inquiry should focus on the conduct the prosecution will attempt to prove in the second prosecution, not the evidence that it will use to prove that conduct.
    For example, if someone has an automobile accident and is convicted of driving while intoxicated, that person cannot then be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide arising from the same accident if the state intends to use the drunk driving conviction to prove the homicide charge. On the other hand, the homicide prosecution will not be barred if the state uses other conduct (such as driving too fast) to prove the homicide charge. . On the other hand, the homicide prosecution will not be barred if the state uses other conduct (such as driving too fast) to prove the homicide charge.
    There are, however, a number of exceptions to these propositions. If the first prosecution resulted in a mistrial, a subsequent prosecution is permitted if the defendant consented to the mistrial or if there was “manifest necessity” for the mistrial. Manifest necessity would be found, for example, where a mistrial was declared because the indictment contained a defect that would have been a basis for reversing a conviction.
    Finally, Double Jeopardy does not prevent a separate sovereignty from prosecuting again for the same offense. In Heath v. Alabama (1985), the Supreme Court held that federal prosecution is not barred by a previous state prosecution for the same offense. In other words, the state can rule on a case and regardless the ruling; the case can be tried again in Federal Court.
    Thank you for yur time. I will now step down from my soapbox.

  • I don't think we should do away with double jeopardy rule. Removing the double jeopardy rule opens up the possibility of the state harassing an individual with repeated prosecutions for the same crime.

    If the state can prosecute someone repeatedly for the same crime, then this makes the option of politically motivated prosecutions more attractive as a means of harassing an individual whom the state does not like or of whom they are suspicious. Since the state would determine the hurdle to be passed for a repeat prosecution, and also has considerable powers to dig up dirt, the situation becomes heavily loaded in the state's favour.

    Posted by: CristinaQ

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.