Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444

    Is double jeopardy jeopardising justice?

    There was a interesting program, to me at least, on radio nationals law report this week dealing with the move by some people to remove the law regarding double jeopardy. Should a person who has be aquitted of a crime be to be able to be prosecuted again for the same crime? Should a person be able to charged with perjury for denying they committed a crime? Would removing double jeopardy mean a person could be continually harassed?
    Scott

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,361
    I think the main issue here was that sometimes people had been tried and found not guilty, then later DNA evidence comes to light that more or less proved that they did it. Obviously there need to be safeguards to make sure that if you are revisiting a prosecution because you have new evidence, then that new evidence really is likely to be the final word, rather than having someone tried and found not guilty yet again.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  3. #3
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,796
    Now if you got Judge Judy and that guy from "Deal or no Deal" you would have a great game show "Double Jeopardy!" .

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    I agree with KBs comments ... there ought to be "substantial new evidence" that is of a direct and easily verifiable nature (e.g. DNA evidence).

    Things that ought not to be accepted might be things like new eyewitness evidence or photographic evidence (the former might be concocted years later when those who might cross examine have since died, the latter can be easily fabricated by people who have enough time on their hands).
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  5. #5
    Account Shoutbox Banned antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    There was a interesting program, to me at least, on radio nationals law report this week dealing with the move by some people to remove the law regarding double jeopardy. Should a person who has be aquitted of a crime be to be able to be prosecuted again for the same crime? Should a person be able to charged with perjury for denying they committed a crime? Would removing double jeopardy mean a person could be continually harassed?
    Scott
    When a heretic or gay/lesbian was burnt alive at the stake that was one judgement and punishment, upon dying are they then tried again by God and this time burnt forever in Hell? Is this double jeopardy?

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Should a person who has be aquitted of a crime be to be able to be prosecuted again for the same crime?
    You mean tried again.

    Well, if you've already been acquitted, then the state shouldn't have two bites at the cherry no matter that some new evidence may be uncovered later.

    Just remember, when you're accused of a crime, you're going up against an entire machinery of state. This is why we must place the burden on them (the prosecution).

    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Should a person be able to charged with perjury for denying they committed a crime?
    If the poor bastard is found guilty, then why bother with perjury? And if not guilty, then the same. No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Would removing double jeopardy mean a person could be continually harassed?
    I reckon.

    AR

  7. #7
    Account Shoutbox Banned antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    You mean tried again.

    Well, if you've already been acquitted, then the state shouldn't have two bites at the cherry no matter that some new evidence may be uncovered later.

    A/C
    If it was a crime against you, your family or future children you may hold a different opinion. You never know until you have been there. The Palistinians would not have turned to being terrorists if their land was not stolen by Zionists.

    AR
    Just remember, when you're accused of a crime, you're going up against an entire machinery of state. This is why we must place the burden on them (the prosecution).



    If the poor bastard is found guilty, then why bother with perjury? And if not guilty, then the same. No?



    I reckon.

    AR
    A/C
    Why should the accused be allowed to lie, it could cost millions extra to produce evidence (or maybe never be produced), so a lie is adding insult to injury!

    Where there is definite lying and the person is definitely guilty then perjury yes!

    Put that in your halo-halo and mix it!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •