Double Jeopardy can be a.....

[JnEricsonx]

Isaac Turnbaugh: Man Acquitted Of Friend's Murder Confesses To Police, Walks Free

Unbelieveable.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Do you understand why we have double jeopardy laws? Because even though it does let some people walk away with a crime, it does do a lot of good.

 

[lordofthereef]

Do you understand why we have double jeopardy laws? Because even though it does let some people walk away with a crime, it does do a lot of good.

Based on the title of the thread, the OP is simply pointing out where double jeopardy fails us. It certainly does do a lot of good. In this instance, it didn't do any.

 

[Steven58]

I thought this thread was about the game show.

 

[lordofthereef]

I didn't know there was a gameshow called double Jeopardy!

 

[Frisco]

Double Jeopardy is a portion of the show.

Tougher questions, mostly about the microbes in Alex Trebek's mustache.

 

[lordofthereef]

Didn't know this. Thanks.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Isaac Turnbaugh: Man Acquitted Of Friend's Murder Confesses To Police, Walks Free

Unbelieveable.

Read the article, a bit misleading. I believe the individual also confessed to the world trade bombing. Oh yes, police admitted no motive, also confessions were not in writing or taped. Individual has a history of mental illness. Still, you are correct, double jeopardy would prohibited a new trial for the exact same charges individual was found not guilty of. Then again, if true, individual did deprive individual of his civil liberties, which is a different criminal charge.

 

[RiverOfIce]

pointing out where double jeopardy fails us.

It can not fail us. Because in order to fail us, you would have to be guilty before you are innocent. Guilt is not where you did the crime, but where a jury of your peers thinks you are responsible for that crime. You can not determine if you are responsible for the crime until you are tried for that crime. The trail requires the prosecution to prove you are responsible. The defense tries to prove the prosecution wrong.

You understand the problem right? Guilt is not where you actually did the crime, but where they find you responsible for that crime. Every year, about 10,000 people are sent to jail for crimes they did not commit, but where found guilty/responsible of. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

Most criminal trials are now forced into the media spot light to get a moral conviction before a legal one, ie Casey Antony trial.

 

[lordofthereef]

It certainly can fail you. A person that is guilty but not enough evidence was presented can get away with murder, hence justice was not served.

People being thrown into jail if they didn't do the crime doesn't make the guilty. They are still innocent, but wrongfully convicted. It's just as sad as the murderer getting off scott free.

As clarification, I personally view that as failure, regardless of semantics.

 

[RiverOfIce]

A person that is guilty but not enough evidence was presented can get away with murder, hence justice was not served.

How can a person be "guilty" with out being convicted? You can not be guilty until AFTER you are convicted for the crime. A person did not "get away with murder" because that would require guilt. Guilt requires you being convicted.
Guilt- Law The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law; legal culpability.


How is justice not served, when you find the person guilty with out a trial, enforce rules with out standards, and directly break the law?
Justice-
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.

You can not get away with murder, because you are only guilty of that murder after you are convicted of that murder. If you do not go to trial and/or have factual evidence against you, there can not be law, honor, or standards and therefor can not be justice.

When a person is accused of a crime, but there is not enough evidence to convict, then justice was served, because justice is the honor, standards, and correct following of the law, which clearly states the burden of proof.

Burden of proof is not enough evidence to bring to trial, which is justice.

 

[esthernrob]

I thought this thread was about the game show.

i'll take "star wars" for 800 alex....

 

[lordofthereef]

How can a person be "guilty" with out being convicted? You can not be guilty until AFTER you are convicted for the crime. A person did not "get away with murder" because that would require guilt. Guilt requires you being convicted.
Guilt- Law The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law; legal culpability.


How is justice not served, when you find the person guilty with out a trial, enforce rules with out standards, and directly break the law?
Justice-
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.

You can not get away with murder, because you are only guilty of that murder after you are convicted of that murder. If you do not go to trial and/or have factual evidence against you, there can not be law, honor, or standards and therefor can not be justice.

When a person is accused of a crime, but there is not enough evidence to convict, then justice was served, because justice is the honor, standards, and correct following of the law, which clearly states the burden of proof.

Burden of proof is not enough evidence to bring to trial, which is justice.

Again, semantics.

If a person killed someone, they are guilty of killing that person. Perhaps not in the eyes of the law, but the term "guilt" is not only a legal one.

If a person kills someone, is acquitted, and we later find a video of said murder, said person can't be tried again. That is not justice. That is where said laws has failed in providing justice.

Again, you don't have to agree with me, but you are never going to make me believe that in the scenario I presented, justice was served.

 

[copestag]

I suppose it would be impossible to have a guilty conscience unless you were convicted of something in a court of law..... you could have a self deprecating conscience or feel shame but it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have a guilty conscience without a conviction

its not cheating on your wife unless you get caught? youre not drunk driving unless you get a DUI?

must have gone to the same school of semantics as Bill Clinton.....it all depends on what your definitino of the word IS is

 

[OutofDate1980]

I suppose it would be impossible to have a guilty conscience unless you were convicted of something in a court of law..... you could have a self deprecating conscience or feel shame but it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have a guilty conscience without a conviction

its not cheating on your wife unless you get caught? youre not drunk driving unless you get a DUI?

must have gone to the same school of semantics as Bill Clinton.....it all depends on what your definitino of the word IS is

The topic that started this thread was based on a legal definition, i.e. Double jeopardy, which is reality, not spin.

 

[copestag]

read through the thread again which will bring you to the current point

 

[OutofDate1980]

Again, semantics.

If a person killed someone, they are guilty of killing that person. Perhaps not in the eyes of the law, but the term "guilt" is not only a legal one.

If a person kills someone, is acquitted, and we later find a video of said murder, said person can't be tried again. That is not justice. That is where said laws has failed in providing justice.

Again, you don't have to agree with me, but you are never going to make me believe that in the scenario I presented, justice was served.

Speaking for myself for those of us that served in the Armed Forces, I'm concerned with your statement "If a person killed someone, they are guilty of killing that person.

Guilt implies moral condemnation.

For those that killed directly and indirectly, specific and non-specific individuals while following the rules of engagement are not guilty under our laws, but did cause the loss of life, i.e. killing, and serious bodily injury.

Semantics is important in the real world and the last I checked the legal system resides in the real world.

 

[lordofthereef]

Speaking for myself for those of us that served in the Armed Forces, I'm concerned with your statement "If a person killed someone, they are guilty of killing that person."

Ok. Let me clarify.

If a person kills their neighbor for screwing his wife, he is guilty of the crime, regardless of how the ruling goes. Again, read the thread. I would hope that it is clear that I am not about to tell those that kill opponents in war that they did the wrong thing.

Bless you for protecting our country, but please don't twist my words.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Ok. Let me clarify.

If a person kills their neighbor for screwing his wife, he is guilty of the crime, regardless of how the ruling goes. Again, read the thread. I would hope that it is clear that I am not about to tell those that kill opponents in war that they did the wrong thing.

Bless you for protecting our country, but please don't twist my words.

Sorry you feel I twisted your words, as I was quoting.

May I suggest that if one is found guilty of unlawful killing then one is guilty of murder ?

Now you and I can believe someone got away with murder doesn't equate to that the individual is guilty of murder.

Perhaps a more fruitful discussion is to determine if there were errors in the process. Did the police, judge/jury, prosecutor make errors ? If so, can these errors be avoided in the future ?

 

[lordofthereef]

As I mentioned, one can be acquitted, then provide a video tape of the murder occurring, and not be tried for said murder again, under the double Jeopardy law. This is another example I gave. It is not about how you, I, or anyone else feels. It is that this can literally happen and there is nothing that can be done about it. In said scenario, justice was not served.

Perhaps there were errors in the process, or perhaps the murderer simply covered his/her tracks too well. Either way, if there are errors in the process initially, and a murderer does get off scott free, justice still was not served. We can blame the prosecution, but at the end of the day, the murderer still walked right? If new evidence comes up after the fact, we can;t go back and patch the holes. In some cases, that is a very big problem.

 

[OutofDate1980]

If new evidence comes up after the fact, we can;t go back and patch the holes. In some cases, that is a very big problem.

Granted, the world we live in is not perfect. Then again in some circumstances an individual can be charged and convicted for the same conduct as long as charges are different from charges an individual was found not guilty of.

I believe abolishing the double jeopardy exclusion will do more harm than good. Perhaps a discussion on why the double jeopardy exclusion exists and benefits versus detriments can be weighed.

 

[lordofthereef]

Then again in some circumstances an individual can be charged and convicted for the same conduct as long as charges are different from charges an individual was found not guilty of.

No doubt. Generally, there is a much lesser charge, though, with a much lesser sentence.

I believe abolishing the double jeopardy exclusion will do more harm than good. Perhaps a discussion on why the double jeopardy exclusion exists and benefits versus detriments can be weighed.

I do not propose abolishing anything. I simply agree with the original poster, and especially with the thread title of "Double Jeopardy Can be a...." because, well, it can be a bitch.

It exists so innocent people don't spend the rest of their life in court being retried for the same crime until the end of time. Certainly this also saves government resources and lessens the already immense stress on the court system. No doubt it is necessary and, in general, does what it is meant to do. But, try telling that to the families and loved ones of the victim in the crime in question. We can justify it until we are blue in the face. When it fails, it fails, and no amount of justification is going to change that.

Same goes for the court system in general. Saying that, in general, only guilty persons get convicted has little merit to the hundreds of people spending dozens of years in prison, or worse, that are executed, for crimes they didn't commit. The system usually working isn't good enough for them and their families.

 

[lordofthereef]

To add to that a bit, it is probably much harder to compare how many people have been helped by this law to how many have been hurt. I suppose, theoretically, we can say that everyone who was ever acquitted was helped by the law, however I don't feel that is nearly the case. It is possibly a little more clear to see those who have been hurt. In any case, what is an acceptable "failure rate"? I don't know the answer to that. It goes back to putting yourself in the person's shoes. Let's say we can scientifically pinpoint the failure rate as .00000001%, which statistically speaking, would be phenomenal, I think. Would you feel better knowing you are in that miniscule percentage if the law turned to be against your favor? I know I wouldn't.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... But, try telling that to the families and loved ones of the victim in the crime in question. We can justify it until we are blue in the face. When it fails, it fails, and no amount of justification is going to change that. ...

Think the only thing worse is a family finding that the wrong person was convicted.

 

[lordofthereef]

Think the only thing worse is a family finding that the wrong person was convicted.

No doubt. And situations like that are where the justice system fails us. How do we make it better? I am not sure. It certainly is easier to point out flaws than it is to know how to fix them, isn't it?