Double Jeopardy

[darkeyes]

We all know that being found not guilty of a crime is not necessarily being found innocent of a crime, just as being found guilty is often not of itself confirmation of guilt. There is a presumption of innocence prior to any trial and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of a defendant.. 5 years ago, in England. the principle of Double Jeopardy was abandoned for some of the most serious crimes on the statute book. Now Scotland proposes to follow suit..legislation is to be placed before the Scottish parliament that the rule of Double jeopardy will no longer apply to crimes of rape, murder, some other serious sexual offences and culpable homicide (manslaughter).

I have some serious reservations about this decision by the Scottish government, as should we all, yet I know that very often for one reason or other trials are hamstrung in the end by jury tampering, inept prosecution, police corruption, and very often evidence not being considered by judge or jury as sufficient to prove guilt. Evidence is conveniently "lost" by the police or sometimes not even plaved before a jury, technicalities end trials and there are a million and one reasons why people are either aquitted or charges are dismissed, or in my country defendants found Not Proven.. which at present means the rule of double jeopardy still applies..

All to often victims of the most heinous crimes do not recieve justice they are due, and the "alleged" perpetrators walk free from court... those who know me are aware that when it comes to our justice system, I am very much a liberal, and it is this which makes me question the wisdom of the decision to preceed with this bill. Yet every week new evisence comes to light which may have altered the course of a trial quite substantially, or there is evidence that a jury has been intimidated or tampered with, or corrupt police have hidden evidence which would have done the same thing..

Under the proposals, new and compelling evidence must be forthcomining to justify a second trial of a previously aquitted defendant.. as yet I am unsure of quite what they mean by that entirely, but it is early days and we will soon find out..

Instinctively I do not like it.. but there are occasions when there is a case to be made for such an trial.. I have always argued that one of the fundamental reasons for not having capital punishment is the fact that once a convicted person is executed, new evidence sometimes crops up which proves that persons innocence, or at the very least casts severe doubt as to his or her guilt.. there are many cases of convicted people having been later found innocent years after their original conviction.. if I argue that the innocent who languish in our jails be given right of appeal, and that new evidence should necessitate their aquittal, can I in good conscience argue that the rule of double jeopardy be applied to those who are guilty and yet have previously been found by a jury not guilty or not proven? I never prejudging a person guilt.. but it is a question which is causing me some difficulty.. there are innocent people languishing in our jails for crimes they did not commit.. equally there are many walking our streets who committed the crimes for which they were tried and for one reason or other, aquitted..

Like any original trial, a second trial is open to the same abuses of inept prosecution, evidence and jury tampering, evidence fabrication, judge nobbling I suppose and so on.. but is that enough to say no to this proposition? The rule of double jeopardy has been on Scottish statute books for about 800 years.. is it time that for some serious crimes at least, it be gone..

It all rankles.. but it is making me question my own instinctive dislike of something which may provide a measure of justice to many victims of the most serious crimes in my country.. I have come to no conclusion on this as yet but I do know it is throwing up serious questions in my mind..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10977281

[void()]

I can understand and greatly respect your concern for victims. That said I can also appreciate rights of alleged perpetrators. Not sure if I'm following U.K. letter of it, but here where us Damn Yanks live double jeopardy has a clear meaning.

You can not be tried by a court of law for the same crime twice.

So if you are proven innocent, rightly so or not, you are free of the accusations by law at least. Public opinion on the other hand is oft powerful. For example a vast majority of people still believe O.J. Simpson did murder that poor girl and the lover, despite a court setting him free. I'm a bit agnostic over it, yet still hold to him having the training for it, and then you got forensics of it which lend to that training well.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck ..." But this is just personal opinion which coincides with mass public opinion. It has no real merit save for me being dead set against ever letting Simpson date a daughter if I were to have one. Of course, I would not let any marine date a daughter of mine just on the principle of it.

But he can never face criminal charges or trials for it again. He can however face civil trials, and did. And that's a bit how we do double jeopardy here. Yes victim rights are important but are they more so than the rights of all? And as much as we'd prefer at times to erase rights from certain monsters, we cannot as it would revel us all as monsters, qed.

Again, not sure our terms are matching up. So you can take or leave this as you need / want. Just me quoting Friedrich Nietzsche.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

"Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things." Consider justice.

"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen."

"That every will must consider every other will its equal — would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness."

And it seems really that we do court this path of nothingness. I ponder it as the nothing of Tao but others may not be solaced by such.

[goldenfinger]

Well,we have a case here in Queensland, Australia, where a a guy from Alabama, I think, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his new wife while on their honeymoon. He killed her while on a diving trip, gutting off her air supply.He got only 18 month for that, and will be released this November. Alabama now wants to put him on trail for planning the murder in the US. Alabama has capital punishment, so the government here will not release all the papers till Alabama state agrees to not give him the death penalty.His name is Watson, can't remember his first name. What do you think of that?

[Hephaestion]

In England we have now adopted the approach of double jeopardy i.e it has become law. If significant new evidence turns up then the possibility of another trial becomes real.

However...............people here have been tried on more than one occasion for the same crime and continue to be so regardless of the law on existing evidence i.e nothing new. What message does that telegraph to any jury?

Being innocent until proven guilty appears to have gone out of the window.

Being found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt for murder has been abandoned.

Then there is the manslaughter charge. Manslaughter was supposed to be associated with a reckless act of endagerment which resulted in a death and death could be forseen in the recklessness. Otherwise it is negligence in faliure to accord others a duty of care. Nope! ANY act which results in a death whether linked or not attracts the charge. In doing so, again there is an implicit presumption of guilt and having to prove otherwise - Except if you are a policeman and swing your baton around or are part of some government body beyond the reach of law.

It's not the 'other side' which needs eradicaing for the rule of democracy to be established - it's our side that needs it. Colonial oppression is no longer fashionable and so we wreak it upon our own

Thank God we have abandoned the death penalty ; For now?

Goldfinger, Oz is right to be wary. The UK needs to address its extradition treaties also.

"You want our citizen? no don't bother with any evidence. Trussed up, yes? - with or without an apple in the mouth?"

.

[TaylorMade]

Void, as someone who has dated a couple of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, what is the cause of such prejudice?

*Taylor*

[MarieDelta]

This strikes me as injustice. I do sympathise with those who have been victimised. But it seems this allows prosecuters and police to not put the effort and care into building a case against the accused, allowing them to waste the time/money of the court and the accused.

And yet again we have those who were accused, unjustly, and found guilty. Those people were victims, as well.

Prosecuters and police should have to think prior to charging someone with a crime. It makes them do real research into who did the crime, instead of just relying on prejudice and speculation.


This is just my opinion, of course.

[void()]

Void, as someone who has dated a couple of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, what is the cause of such prejudice?

*Taylor*

My father is a leatherneck. I've known others and am just keen on not caring much for such people. There are good and bad in all but I just don't prefer marines. Always strike me as a bit mentality challenged. Then again many people are that. More of a preference and thought process following a stereotype of marines as "wife beaters" than a prejudice. Again, good and bad in all, I know.

[void()]

Prosecuters and police should have to think prior to charging someone with a crime. It makes them do real research into who did the crime, instead of just relying on prejudice and speculation.

I might be off the mark but perhaps, that's the point. Thinking is itself illegal, even for our authorities. Education does not currently teach critical thinking. No it merely prepares you to be the human robot in some Macky Donalds or factory, or cubical. Leave the thinking to the 'higher ups', who always get it fouled anyway but no one cares because they're 'higher ups' and nothing to be done but 'go with the flow'.

Where I work, one of the fellows on the line for our major sports drink, "none of this is on order." We ran over 60,000 cases on surplus in two nights. The major sports drink company had not ordered the excess but our company's 'higher ups' said we'd run it anyway. Sure we're glad of the work but when it wasn't needed? Um ... But that's just how it goes. And there is nothing else out there. So, 'go with the flow'.

[TaylorMade]

My father is a leatherneck. I've known others and am just keen on not caring much for such people. There are good and bad in all but I just don't prefer marines. Always strike me as a bit mentality challenged. Then again many people are that. More of a preference and thought process following a stereotype of marines as "wife beaters" than a prejudice. Again, good and bad in all, I know.

At least you know it's a baseless prejudice.

My ex was a good guy. . . probably more tolerant than most of his type of my bisexuality. But, there were some places I wanted to go emotionally and sexually that I knew he was not going to follow. So I figured, better to break up with him now, rather than 10 years, two kids and a house later.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

Thank God we have abandoned the death penalty ; For now?

Goldfinger, Oz is right to be wary. The UK needs to address its extradition treaties also.

"You want our citizen? no don't bother with any evidence. Trussed up, yes? - with or without an apple in the mouth?"

.I don't think that where a crime carries a capital sentence that the UK can extradite an accused unless agreement is reached that a lesser penalty will be imposed should they be found guilty.. in the case of foreign nationals of course, that has not stopped the UK from deporting people back to their country of origin to face just a sentence for serious "crimes" like being opposed to a viscious and nasty totalitarian regime, and in consequence applying for asylum for being in fear for their lives..

[darkeyes]

This strikes me as injustice. I do sympathise with those who have been victimised. But it seems this allows prosecuters and police to not put the effort and care into building a case against the accused, allowing them to waste the time/money of the court and the accused.

And yet again we have those who were accused, unjustly, and found guilty. Those people were victims, as well.

Prosecuters and police should have to think prior to charging someone with a crime. It makes them do real research into who did the crime, instead of just relying on prejudice and speculation.


This is just my opinion, of course.

What your saying Marie, is that prosecutors and police get it right first time round....:)

[DuckiesDarling]

Interesting, but as Void said here in the US it's simple. You can't be tried twice for the SAME CRIME. Yeah I capped that for emphasis and I'm gonna give you a little link but I'll summarise.

Mel Ignatow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow) killed Brenda Sue Shafer. He did it viciously. He was tried and found not guilty because of some technicalities and lack of a key piece of evidence he had hidden. Years later someone cleaning in the house found some evidence hidden. They couldn't get him again for the murder because of double jeapordy. All they could do was go after him for perjury. He finally served time but not for killing Brenda Sue, for lying about killing Brenda Sue.

In Goldfingers case, it's not the same crime. It's for the planning of the crime which would indicate they have some evidence the trip to Australia was to kill the wife. We'll have to see how it plays out. But if that guy did kill his life and planned to do it he deserves more than 18 months. :2cents:

[void()]

At least you know it's a baseless prejudice.
*Taylor*

Yes, I do. But each of us are granted choice in having these once in a bit, imho. Never said I was a saint or perfect. Guess it could be seen as a double standard, which seems akin to double jeopardy, both cause lots of heartache.

"But if that guy did kill his life and planned to do it he deserves more than 18 months."

If they can prove out he did plan it, then you got premeditation & murder. Usually that warrants capital punishment or life sentence. But I'm no lawyer or cop, only mocking the television. :) Perry Manson only comes on via satellite or cable, now, shame. There ought to be a law against void not getting to see Perry. Bah, I watched Lie to Me tonight, Cold Case, Bones, Without a Trace last night. Yeehaw, lovely glitzed over forensics dreamies ... pffft.