• 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
  • I'm too bored to say why

    Just read the other peoples reasons, they have it covered. I really just want to support this, so I'll just write random things to fill up space. How was your day? Good? Not good? Rate your experience. From 1-10, are you happy? Say if you got the reference. Oh, I'm done

  • This is a silly law.

    People should need to get arrested for there crime especially if they did it again !
    If your i criminal then you will be for this argument and if you are not then you will have to be the opposite side.
    Like myself im against this silly law.This law needs to stop!

  • If we allow for the double jeopardy clause to be abolished, we are compromising our individual rights

    The US Constitutions guarantees us the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is freedom without abusive restraints. Allowing someone to be tried twice with the same evidence and same accusations is an abuse to the freedom our forefathers fought for. Freedom is an individual right that can never be compromised as long as America still stands tall. Double jeopardy ignores justice and allows room for prejudice when trying someone over and over or punishing them again and again for the same crime. That's overuse of power, and this government was built for the people, not power hungry maniacs. The double Jeopardy clause is not causing the justice system to be a one and done deciding machine, it allows for new evidence to be presented in a retrial. We allow them to present the same case on very strict borders; we allow justice to be served. We should we do away with the double jeopardy rule? No, because it is right and just in every area of the law.

  • Farts are cool

    They are cool rawest sdfg sedge sdfg sdfgsdf sdfg sdfg fg sfdg sf gsdfg sdfg sdfg sdfg sfdg sdfg sdfg sdfg sdfg fdg fsd gsdfg sdfg sdfg sdfg sdfg sdf gsdfgv sf gjsdkf dbfasdh adshfjas djfha sdkfhas ldfahsdkja sjkdfh a df hasfa lsdhf ahdfas dfhalsdhf adshf adshf af asjkfha sdlkdhf adsjhf askjh asf

  • A world filled with hate

    If America was in another race tension time period, double jeopardy would be very useful to defend the minority. A member of a minority group could be put on trial for false reasons and still be convicted again and again if there was no double jeopardy. Or in more recent matters, if someone was gay and discriminated against for that purpose and where repeatedly convicted. In some cases as in murder I understand why double jeopardy can interfere in the publics safety.

  • It would waste more time than needed and would make one person loose their money .

    When a person is tried for whatever they did and the jury says there innocent or guilty then it shouldn't have to go on retrial because they already a decision then that is the end of it. When the government just wants a double jeopardy because they want the verdict to be guilty is a dumb way for someone to get someone else guilty. This would also drain the verdict money and without money they cant continue the case.

  • Oh My God Noo

    This keeps innocent people out of jail more then it keeps criminals out of jail so that means its doing more good than harm. And as long as it is doing more good than it is doing harm than we should keep it because it seams to be working well.

  • The state can harass individuals indefinitly

    1) Double jeopardy puts pressure on the prosecution to make sure they try the case correctly the first time. If prosecution knows they only has one change to prove his case they will do the best job possible the first time. If they think they can try and re-try a person’s case over and over again then they may get sloppy and subject persons to prolonged court proceedings and the threat of repeated proceedings.

    2) The threat of a re-trial will never go away and no defendant will be realistically entitled to a not guilty verdict.

    3) Verdicts of jury’s could be circumnavigated and prosecutors can rely on time and chance that they will get a jury who will give a guilty verdict. For example if 49 jury’s acquit a defendant and the 50th jury finds him guilty there is a good chance justice has been denied the defendant and an innocent man has been found guilty.

    4) If prosecution wants another trial then maybe the defence should be able to call for another trial after they have been found guilty.

    5) The court system is already quite clogged up and to allow prosecutors to re-trial matters will further clog up the courts and impede justice to others

  • It puts innocent people's lives at risk and waste people's time, money and effort

    At every trial, even if a defendant is found not guilty and there is absolutely no evidence he/she committed a crime, there will always be people who believe in their guilt. Repealing double jeopardy would result in scores of innocent people being harassed and threatened by those who think they are guilty. No one, not a judge, lawyers, defendant, witnesses or victim's family would want to have to endure the same pain again with a new trial.

  • Double jeopardy prevents the government from endless prosecution

    The reality is that without double jeopardy you could simply prosecute someone over and over again until you got the result you wanted or until they went broke, or simply do it to keep them from ever doing anything else.

    It prevents the government from abusing the legal system. It is vitally important that it remains.

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