Double jeopardy? #shorts

The state shouldn't be allowed to keep putting you on trial for as long as it takes to find you guilty. But what if there is suddenly new evidence in a murder case?

[ZenithWest]

Another good point of double jeopardy is it prevents police from immediately arresting someone and trying them in court, realizing they've been lazy in collecting evidence, arrest you immediately after, try again with a little more evidence and rinse and repeat ... Because they only have one shot at trying you, it forces them to do the due diligence of ensuring you're guilty (to the best of their ability) before arresting you and putting you on trail.

[leko]

As a german I can say it is not about the criminal being punished but to protect innocent people

[gearsie_]

it kinda sucks that he was able to get away, but it's also important to keep such a fundamental right protected

[stevenschwartzhoff]

Justice was not served, but injustice was avoided.

[CorwinFound]

Justice wasn't served... But sometimes that's the cost of ensuring that even more people _do_ receive justice. Human rights sometimes protect human monsters and there isn't anything we can do about it without becoming a monstrous society.

[magictoffee]

The point of Double jeopardy is that Innocent people should not forced to spend the rest of their lives in the courtroom just because new evidence was found. It's better a Guilty man walk free than an Innocent Man be punished even if the punishment is just having to endure years of Legal Battles.

[rhls]

Don't trust laws that say "if enough", what is enough and who decides it? Any time such vagueness is put into a law, it should include red flags

[Ralphieboy]

In America we have seen examples of the opposite: new DNA comes up exonerated convicted criminals but they still languish in prison.

[MattyMatthew-mo]

Its a necessary evil. This law is very important. Without it, the feds could just send anyone who was ever infront of a judge to prison whenever they want.

[HannyDarnack]

That’s where Dexter is supposed to come in.

[martinstent]

I am really surprised that it is called "double jeopardy". The law is actually protecting people from being prosecuted again and again by someone "finding" new witnesses or new evidence. There is a certain logic in "You had your day in court, and the court decided you are innocent. End of story, you can get on with your life now!".

[ohauss]

A lot of people do not understand that DNA doesn't prove someone committed a crime. It at best proves that someone had some contact with either the location, the tool/weapon used, or the victim of a crime. And even that may be stretching it, as DNA is an incredibly stable molecule and it is very much possible to carry hairs etc. of someone else around to the site of a crime.
Real life judiciary is not an episode of CSI.

[OrangeMoFrap]

Very tough debate. Especially considering, that this particular case was not just murder. It was the rape and subsequent murder of a girl/young woman.

[TSV]

I don’t know about this story. Here’s a story from the US: A man M was accused of murder. His DNA was found at the crime scene. It turns out that M had been treated by the same paramedic P as the murder victim V. M’s DNA was present on V because both had been touched by P. DNA just isn’t enough evidence because it doesn’t provide context just by existing.

[Narwarlock]

A failure of justice in the past can not be remedied by a failure in justice in the present.

[AlexEarMusic]

I know you only had a minute to talk about this but there was a very important point made by the judges.

They said, while it is a tragedy for the family that the potential murderer of their daughter is not brought to justice, the reason the court judged against the law being constitutional was that it could apply to crime committed in the past - which is unconstitutional.

They have to rewrite the law and have it apply only to cases which will happen in the future. It sucks, but from that point it is understandable.

[nunosantos]

The principle of res judicata in common law says that a case cannot be decided twice. It’s clearly prohibited. Once a ruling has been given no new charges can be made on the issue adjudicated.

[Rabbit-the-One]

So, whats the definition of "enough" in this case?
Justice both was and wasn't served. Just different forms in different instances.

[lexmortis]

If you do the crime, you do the time. As a german, this is typical for an oligarchy like us. Bad people would get in trouble if new evidence could reopen a case.

[drbosommd]

When strong new evidence comes to light there should be an exception.