The 'Double Jeopardy' law

Should the Double Jeopardy rule (no one can be tried twice for the same offense) be abolished?

No. I'm not willing to give up my constitutional protection against repeated prosecution and harassment just because someone who is truly guilty may have literally gotten way with murder.

This really gets a bad rep on TV shows because like on Law and Order, they make it sound like you can't try a murderer again no matter what, not true. If you find new evidence proving they killed someone they CAN be tried again, and that's how it ought to be I think.

alan smithee wrote:No. I'm not willing to give up my constitutional protection against repeated prosecution and harassment just because someone who is truly guilty may have literally gotten way with murder.

Nope. It was put in there for a reason. So many things that are in our Bill of Rights and Constitution seem antiquated now, but that's a failure of imagination on our part, I think.

Things that happened in the past, could always happen in the future, imo. That's why I'm not willing to let go of our right to bear arms either.

Supernova wrote:This really gets a bad rep on TV shows because like on Law and Order, they make it sound like you can't try a murderer again no matter what, not true. If you find new evidence proving they killed someone they CAN be tried again, and that's how it ought to be I think.

No, they can't. Not if the crime was a single act in one jurisdiction. It may be possible for someone to be prosecuted in Federal court after they are aquitted by a state. If someone is tried and acquitted of a single act, they can't be re-tried for the same crime even if new evidence is discovered that probably would have led to their conviction at their original trial. Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses.

alan smithee wrote:

Supernova wrote:This really gets a bad rep on TV shows because like on Law and Order, they make it sound like you can't try a murderer again no matter what, not true. If you find new evidence proving they killed someone they CAN be tried again, and that's how it ought to be I think.

No, they can't. Not if the crime was a single act in one jurisdiction. It may be possible for someone to be prosecuted in Federal court after they are aquitted by a state. If someone is tried and acquitted of a single act, they can't be re-tried for the same crime even if new evidence is discovered that probably would have led to their conviction at their original trial. Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses.

So OJ is off the hook, I guess. (maybe he's innocent, I was having my 14th birthday party when he had that low speed chase so I have no idea...)

thepossiblepolice wrote:

So OJ is off the hook, I guess. (maybe he's innocent, I was having my 14th birthday party when he had that low speed chase so I have no idea...)

June 17th, 1994, I would've only been 4 at that time and had NO idea whatsoever what the hell was going on, it was several years before I ever heard about that case.

Supernova wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

So OJ is off the hook, I guess. (maybe he's innocent, I was having my 14th birthday party when he had that low speed chase so I have no idea...)

June 17th, 1994, I would've only been 4 at that time and had NO idea whatsoever what the hell was going on, it was several years before I ever heard about that case.

I watched the whole trial, lol. I was babysitting and bored.

To answer the question, yes, O.J. could admit to the murders and unless there was a way for the Feds to make a case, he wouldn't see the inside of a courtroom for that. But, if he had only been charged and acquitted for one of the murders, he could still be tried for the second.

PS – TPP, you didn’t see the whole trial. Just the parts that were telecast.

alan smithee wrote:To answer the question, yes, O.J. could admit to the murders and unless there was a way for the Feds to make a case, he wouldn't see the inside of a courtroom for that. But, if he had only been charged and acquitted for one of the murders, he could still be tried for the second.

PS – TPP, you didn’t see the whole trial. Just the parts that were telecast.

That's true, of course! It seemed like the whole thing though, I swear I watched court tv for 7 hours a day and it was all OJ.

Chris wrote:Should the Double Jeopardy rule (no one can be tried twice for the same offense) be abolished?

Hell no.

The Double Jeopardy law should stay as it is. Repealing it would only allow for overzealous and bitter prosecutors who lost to continue which hunting the acquitted accused at the public's expense. If a jury of the defendants peers got it wrong, then that's a shame. No one said the system is perfect or always right.