Wrestling Forum banner

Final Battle: NWD Championship - MrMonty vs. DestrosSecret vs. Aussie

704 views 5 replies 2 participants last post by  Aussie 
#1 ·
Double Jeopardy. Fair or not fair?

Deadline to hand in your debate will be Sunday May 10th. Failure to show will result in an automatic disqualification. As previously mentioned, your debates are to be posted in this thread only.

You have the option to choose your own side of the topic so you may debate the same side without consequence.

Good luck.
 
#2 ·
Was hoping to hold out a bit longer, but ill health is forcing me to bed before the deadline. Its far from award winning and my oscars gonna have to wait but...

Double Jeopardy. Fair or Unfair?


The idea of double jeopardy has a pretty sound basis. Finding its foundation in the 5th amendment, it found legal precedent in the US supreme court after Green Vs United States in 1957 where the court declared, basically, that ‘the state with all its resources should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict someone’. Meaning if the state with all its knowledge and power can’t fix you up, you’re probably innocent. Over here in the UK, we don’t have Double Jeopardy in the same style as the US, however, after reading up and spending hours in the library hitting on geeky women and reading Garfield, I’m sure as glad we don’t. The basis of my debate is that Double Jeopardy, whether it is removed from law or enforced by law is unfair.

Double Jeopardy acts as a means to defend the individual from the harassment of the judiciary system. As a quick definition, it means that if you are acquitted of a crime you can’t be retried on the basis of the same evidence, and although it seems fair on face value it leaves the court open for exploitation. For example, in a case close to everyone’s heart, OJ Simpson’s lawyer, the famed Johnny Cochran, was accused of getting OJ off by playing the race card from the ‘bottom of the deck’ to the mainly black jury. If it was the case that OJ had committed the murders and got off simply on the agreement of ‘He’s black, and so are you’ surely there’s been a gross miscarriage of justice. In this case the evidence is the same, but a different jury may deliver a different verdict. In OJ’s case it would be far from practical, just bringing it up in discussion will have you labelled with a bunch of colourful descriptions, yet it illustrates the point that trails are not solely about the presence of evidence. The lawyer who doesn’t put 2 and 2 together, the jury who vote along bias lines are all threats to the legal system which are enforced through the double jeopardy rule. Its stringent enforcement can be extremely dangerous to the legal system.

However, the removal of the law is also dangerous. All of a sudden the judiciary system can harass, oppress and make an individual’s life a living hell by simply remaining unrelenting in trying to get a conviction. No one deserves that sort of treatment, and in a democracy we find it hard to believe that our government would be so inclined, however, if our history proves anything it’s that our systems are more than capable of such actions and need enforced limitations. The US Police forces treatment of civil rights leaders, or the problem of suspected terrorists sitting in guantamino ( or however the cool kids spell it) bay have pushed the need for limits to be put on the legal system. Without Double Jeopardy how many attempts would the judiciary system take in bringing a suspect to trail before it got it ‘right’? It’s a dangerous rule to eliminate.

It seems without double jeopardy we’re in a situation where there is no legal precedent to halt the judiciary system harassing or oppressing individuals they are ‘convinced’ have committed a crime. Yet the hardcore emplacement of the ‘right’ means that dangerous people can be released onto the street on the simple basis of a lawyer having a ‘bad day’. Therefore deciding whether Double Jeopardy is fair or unfair comes down to one simple question.

Who is the law there to protect?

The truth is that it’s not there to protect the prosecution nor the defendant, its role is to protect society. On one hand we don’t want a law system which can harass or endanger our liberties, yet on the other, we don’t want dangerous people to have a guaranteed ‘get out of jail free’ card should the system fail. By enforcing a law which allows these either of these to occur you’re creating a legal hole that can be exploited. Double Jeopardy should always be available as a point of appeal, but it should remain up to a judge to decide whether it’s being enacted for the right reasons. They can act as a sovereign power and make the right decision by applying the rule to the case, therefore protecting our individual liberty, without the sacrifice of the system.
 
#6 ·
Double Jeopardy: fair or not fair?

I'm seriously kicking myself I handed out this topic. But got to cop it on the chin and hand this in...

First thing is first, we need to define what Double Jeopardy is. Quite simply, it is a legal clause which states that no person can be convicted of the same crime twice. To use an example, a person is acquitted of murder and a year later, DNA evidence is found which would prove that this person is guilty. However the law clearly indicates that they have already been tried by the State and therefore they cannot prosecute them again.

Looking at this example, is this ruling fair? Of course not and I'm going to provide evidence to prove why. Easiest way to do this? Take the for arguments and kick 'em where it hurts.

Double Jeopardy is an inherent right (ie. Freedom of speech etc.)
Perfect example of this is to refer to the American Constitution's Fifth Amendment: “No man shall be twise sentenced by Civil Justice for one and the same Crime, offence, or Trespasse”.

Pretty simple right? But let's look at it in this light. How long ago was this constitution written? Centuries ago. Since then and more so in the last few years, the forensic evidence that is presented in criminal cases is flawless 9 times out of 10.

Now think of the cases over the last 50 years. How many people were acquitted of crimes that today can prove that they were in fact the culprit? How many murderers got away with their crimes because of lack of evidence? But because of the Double Jeopardy rule, they cannot be tried for that crime again so therefore they get off scott free. Sure that's the law, but what about the suffering the victim's family will do for the rest of their lives...

Each case requires closure (or the principle of finality*)
Translated, simply means, the courts decision is final and there should be no need to restart the trial again. So if this is considered a reasonable argument, what happens to those convictions that are appealed? How many murder or armed robbery or **** cases have been appealed? So is this not a case of “what's good for the goose is good for the gander?” Yeah I thought so.

If Double Jeopardy was abolished, a person could be harassed and tried then retried again and again and again.
This to me is the biggest issue and argument supporting Double Jeopardy. I do agree that if a person is innocent and acquitted of the charges then they have no right to be harassed by prosecutors over and over. However if there has been damning evidence found that wasn't discovered during the trial that will prove an acquitted person's guilt, then the case should be brought to trial again and the evidence shown.

Finally Double Jeopardy, while on paper seemed like a good idea at the time, has only proven to be a strangle hold on the justice system. Think about the amount of cases that can be solved with the technology used today (DNA is a wonderful thing people). Think about how many people who were acquitted that later brag about committing the crime to a friend. Think about the corruption that could have taken place within the jury or the judge themselves. Now go with the knowledge that these people can never be convicted of these crimes again. Kinda pisses you off doesn't it?

* wording from http://www.autrefoisacquit.info/

Sources:
http://www.law4u.com.au/lil/ls_double_jeopardy.html
http://www.autrefoisacquit.info/
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6879/Fifth-Amendment-Double-Jeopardy-Clause.html

(Not my finest hour I'm afraid :$)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top