• Yes, we should always go with the evidence.

    If new evidence comes to light, which following DNA technology is possible in cases for before this time, then an individual should absolutely face retrial. However, I think the strength of the evidence should be ratified and considered before pushing for retrial. If you're guilty you should always be behind bars, no matter how long after a trial.

  • Double Jeopardy Needs to be KICKED to the curb!

    Just because Double Jeopardy has been around for more then 800 years does not mean it has been a good law! Double jeopardy allows criminals to get away with crimes they have committed more than once, what happened with R v Carroll? He was convicted of the murder of 17 month old Deidre Kennedy, then somehow found evidence to not match himself, who then later on told friends of his own that he had then raped, murdered and abandoned the poor girl on top of a toilet block in Ipswich. He was then obviously found guilty again but because of Double Jeopardy he was not able to go to jail because he was already convicted of this crime once before instead he got sentenced too seven years (i think, don't quote me) in prison for perjury, the fact that someone can actually allow a rapist/ murder, mind you of a 17 month old baby is disgusting, he should be sentenced to life in prison if not longer because that is absolutely DISGUSTING! Double Jeopardy is a rule made to protect the guilty

  • I just think so tbh

    Uhhhh like its just really stupid, because if for example the verdict was innocent so they let the person go free, and then um?? Like 5 months later or something and they find really obvious evidence against the person that could essentially put them in jail or even death but oh sorry hunny the "double jeopardy" rule states that no you can't bring them back to court because of some dumb reason ha ha! Its just dumb and not even logical or rational. Humans make mistakes and if there are really big evidences pointing towards that person being guilty then what hte hell put that person in jail man its messed up

  • If you admit to killing someone you deserve the worst

    Imagine it being your kid. I would be heartbroken if one of my family members was killed and they never convicted anyone for their murder and the case is closed and someone admits to killing them but couldnt go to jail. Thats so stupid.And Justice for ALL. What justice? Murderers are running loose because of this rule.

  • Family need justice

    O.J was obviously did it but because of this amendment he got out a free man that is unfair the people who were murdered or was a victim such as family they cant get justice knowing that a murderer of there son/daughter was murdered by he or she yeah state abuse might happen or harassment but if they feel it in there bones and have evidence that they did it then go ahead

  • It is wrong

    ES! 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.

  • Double jeopardy is a barrier to justice.

    Because of double jeopardy, evidence after a trial has no legal significance. Many Americans were enraged after Casey Anthony was acquitted, believing the jury to be underinformed and the evidence to be unseen. I agree and until double jeopardy is repealed, criminals like Casey Anthony will continue to walk away free.

  • Whyt the heck not

    I like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles i like turtles so so so so so so so so so so so so very much

  • Murder, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault

    My rapist walked, he raped 5 other girls they came forward years later, but my case is still shut because he hasn't been convicted, he's been arrested and charged but never convicted. If I had the opportunity to go to court with those other cases and tell my story along with the others who went individually, I know power by numbers would have led to the justice that we all deserved but never received.

  • No one is perfect.

    Like in anything people make mistakes, prosecutors make mistakes and are maybe not very good at their jobs. Macia Clark. So you let murderers off becuase of that? In countries that do not have such a crazy thing as DJ, there is no evidence there is prosecutorial abuse. America looks stupid keeping it.

  • 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.