InsaneJournal
Tweak says, "backstreet's back!Alright!"
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Create Account
IJ Login
OpenID Login
Search by
:
Username
E-mail
Region
Interest
AOL IM
ICQ Number
Yahoo! ID
MSN Username
Jabber
View
Create Account
IJ Login
OpenID Login
Journal
Post
Edit Entries
Customize Journal
Comment Settings
Recent Comments
Manage Tags
Account
Manage Account
Viewing Options
Manage Profile
Manage Notifications
Manage Pictures
Manage Schools
Account Status
Friends
Edit Friends
Edit Custom Groups
Friends Filter
Nudge Friends
Invite
Create RSS Feed
Asylums
Post
Asylum Invitations
Manage Asylums
Create Asylum
Site
Support
Upgrade Account
FAQs
Search By Location
Search By Interest
Search Randomly
Bri (
bri
) wrote in
hardball
,
@
2006
-
03
-
14
00:24:00
How do you feel about
double jeopardy?
Do you think it is a good thing?
(
Post a new comment
)
jacks_sickness
2006-03-14 03:16 pm UTC
(
link
)
I believe if new evidence should present itself there should be another trial. Suppose after the court declares not guilty and the defendant yells "haha and I killed the son of a bitch too!" theres nothing you can do about it b/c of double jeopardy so a guilty man goes free.
(
Reply to this
)
Somewhat
crasi
2007-08-19 06:31 pm UTC
(
link
)
For the most part, I think it's a good thing. Once someone has been tried, they should be able to go through life without fear of the case coming back...unless it's a civil suit. Prosecutors shouldn't be able to keep trialing someone until they get the 'right' jurors. It would increase the number of times one would be called for jury duty.
That said, I can't help but think that new DNA evidence that releases someone is encroaching on double jeopardy. They've been tried and convicted yet they're given the second chance to prove themselves innocent. It's a bit unfair that it doesn't go the other way around. A found 'innocent' being retried after DNA is found that would have convicted him. Double jeopardy at it best.
(
Reply to this
)