Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #6, Feb 9]

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

"Let's start today with a hypothetical," Alex said, as soon as class had started. "A man kills his wife. We arrest him. The defense attorney makes a strong case, and our evidence is weak, so the jury votes 'not guilty.' And so, as soon as the trial is over, then we arrest him and try him again. After five 'not guilty' verdicts, we finally get a jury to convict him, and he goes to jail.

"In the cell next to his, in prison, there's a man who likes to rob banks. He was convicted of robbing the Main Street Bank and sentenced to four years in prison. When he's released, the police arrest him, and once again charge him with that same Main Street Bank robbery. Four years just wasn't enough time. Luckily, we still have all that evidence from the last time. The jury convicts again. He's going back in for another four.

Alex lifted her shoulders. "Most people will object to those two scenarios. In the first case, we're going to drag someone through the court system over and over until we receive the verdict we want, which comes off as an abuse of the government's power. The second is even worse: we're punishing a man twice for a single offense. These situations violate our principles of fairness. Justice isn't always fair, but it should certainly strive for it, where it can.

"As protection against the above, some governments institute a rule against double jeopardy." This was helpfully written on the board. "Double jeopardy means that you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime, regardless of outcome. The State gets one chance to convict you; either you serve your time, or you walk free.

"Double jeopardy seems more fair than the alternative. But like any solution, it has some drawbacks. Here's one. The first hypothetical: we try the man, and the jury votes 'not guilty.' We don't get a second trial, or a third, or a fourth. The man is now untouchable. He hosts a press conference the next day, explaining in detail how and why he killed his wife. He writes books on the topic, and makes a tidy profit. And the law can't lift a finger to stop him. In the eyes of the judicial system, we had our chance, and we blew it. So a murderer walks free.

"That's only one possibility. What if, after the trial finishes, the police find new evidence? Something which dramatically changes everything we know about this case. Should they have a right to re-try the suspect, in light of our discovery? If a man is found not guilty of murder, should we be able to re-arrest him and charge him with manslaughter instead, for that same offense? And at what point in the trial should jeopardy attach? If it's not until the verdict is rendered, what would stop a prosecutor from withdrawing charges if a case seems to be going badly, so that she can start over with a fresh jury?"

"That's today's topic. Double jeopardy." Alex managed a wry grin. "Let's avoid the puns about game shows, all right?"

Comments

Sign In - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

In the form of a question! Today's answer is: the students attending this class.

Re: Sign In - JST06

[not-jaded-yet.livejournal.com]

Who is Jennifer Walters?

During the Lecture - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Take notes. Consider fairness in the judicial system. Start humming the "Jeopardy" music. Annoy your neighbors!

Re: During the Lecture - JST06

[joan-notjane.livejournal.com]

Joan was having a hard time concentrating today what with it being almost Valentine's Day and Andy talking about asking Raven to the dance on the radio and her being a teenage girl.

Re: During the Lecture - JST06

[therewaslife]

Bod took a few notes but mostly listened, finding this whole system of law and order rather fascinating. Complex but fascinating. His home had been thankfully devoid of offenses like these (you couldn't very well kill a ghost and grave robbers were rare) so his practical knowledge in that area was lax.

Re: During the Lecture - JST06

[weetuskenraider]

Well, it wasn't like Tahiri was ever going to assassinate a highly-respected admiral under orders from a Sith Lord, and then get dragged through a show trial two years later by the new and virulently anti-Jedi Head of State just to make a point or anything like that.

. . . no, really. At least, not this version of her. Which was almost a shame because it meant she wouldn't get to be a ballsy smartass at her arraignment.

So while she was listening carefully -- more carefully than she might have last week -- and taking careful notes, her interest was purely academic.

Re: During the Lecture - JST06

[bamf-tastic.livejournal.com]

Kurt wasn't sure he wanted to consider NOT having fairness in the judicial system. And, as usual, he didn't have any sort of good answers to anything. Why did it seem like every time they talked about a rule that seemed to make perfect sense, there were always exceptions?

Re: During the Lecture - JST06

[bitten_notshy]

Jack jotted a few notes during class, interested in the nuts and bolts of it.

Re: During the Lecture - JST06

[heromaniac]

Finally something in the class that made sense. Well, except for the part where they let a murderer go.

Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Do you think it's unfair to try someone multiple times for the same crime? If so, should the law have any recourse when an acquitted person makes a full, public confession? If not, won't this result in more imprisonment of innocent people, as one jury or another is bound to convict sooner or later? Are there any circumstances under which you feel double jeopardy should not apply?

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[joan-notjane.livejournal.com]

"If someone makes a full, public confession to a crime, they absolutely should be charged," Joan said. "Or, really, if any new evidence is found that casts the crime in a different light. With the technological advances we have, it's possible that five or ten years from now, we'll be able to discern evidence that we can't right now."

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[therewaslife]

"In the situations you described, it doesn't sound fair," started Bod, turning the various questions over in his head. "If they're just retrying people because they messed up the first time, it's definitely not fair. I couldn't take an exam again because I got some questions wrong, could I?"

It wasn't the best comparison but it was the one he used and it did make sense in his mind.

"With the other factors, I think there'd have to be serious thought to charging him or her with something," he continued. "If a confession becomes public or new evidence comes to light, it's going to change the case and you wouldn't be arguing the same thing as you were the previous time. I wouldn't see the harm in charging the suspect with a lesser crime or a tangentially related crime just to get him into jail. Something is better than nothing, isn't it?"

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[blondecanary.livejournal.com]

"Well, the civil trial that O.J. went through is a good precedent," Dinah said, thinking aloud. "I mean, he was acquitted of criminal charges, but civil trials are easier, so. He got sued by his wife's family. That's one recourse. No imprisonment, but a lot less money." She frowned, trying to think, then said, "Isn't there some time limit for bringing charges? Could they maybe bring a lesser charge, if it's still inside the time limit when new evidence comes up?"

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[ihaveniceteeth.livejournal.com]

Gwen paused before replying "For the most part the whole double jeopardy system is a good thing," she said. "Even if there's occasions it can be abused."

"Back home the law was clarified a few years to help cover some of the gaps," she added, scratching at her arm. "If there's new and compelling evidence with regards to certain serious crimes you can refer the case for a new trial. You need approval for both that and the original conviction being quashed, of course, but if someone's going around publicly confessing like that, I don't think you'd have too much trouble."

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[likes_scoundrels]

"If new and significant evidence comes to light or the accused makes a confession, they should be tried again," Leia insisted.

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[notqueenyet.livejournal.com]

"If new evidence surfaces, wouldn't that create an entirely new scenario?" Aravis wondered. "If, for instance, I was accused of killing my husband, and had an explanation for my whereabouts during his time of death, and appeared to be a grieving widow, and the case was dismissed -- but after dismissal, one found my sword covered in my fingerprints and his blood, wouldn't that create a much different picture of me to the court, and thus give cause to reopen the case? Even if I did not do it, despite what the sword would indicate, wouldn't the question arise as to how his blood ended up on it? And wouldn't that need to be investigated?"

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[bamf-tastic.livejournal.com]

"Shouldn't they be able to try someone again, if they make a confession?" Kurt asked. "That just makes sense... Except what if the confession is a lie?"

He scratched his head, thinking. "I know you can make an appeal if you're found guilty. Maybe there should be appeals if you're found innocent, too?"

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[likethegun]

"I think the law should have recourse when someone makes a confession after they've been acquitted, especially if they do it publicly, because then it's almost like mocking the lawyers and judges and the judicial system, and I can't even imagine how the members of the jury would feel knowing they let a guilty man go free," Sam said, stopping to actually breathe for a second. "Um, but until we have a way of making sure confessions are really true - I mean, polygraphs can be faked, so I'm talking like a foolproof method - I don't think people can be tried multiple times for stuff like that."

Re: Discussion: Double Jeopardy - JST06

[heromaniac]

"I don't think it's right to try someone for the same crime, no. But if they later confessed... that's not right either. Why did they arrest him if they didn't have enough evidence to put him in jail in the first place?"

Discussion: Technicalities - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

When should jeopardy attach to a trial? Do pre-emptive rules (i.e., giving felons a life sentence for their third violent offense, or having sexual predators incarcerated indefinitely to prevent re-offending) violate the spirit of double jeopardy? If we charge a man with assaulting another man during a bar fight, and he is acquitted, but the second man dies from his injuries, should we be able to charge the first with his murder?

Re: Discussion: Technicalities - JST06

[therewaslife]

"I'd say that yes, the man could be charged but if he was acquitted during his first trial and it was just an assault charge, it's probably going to be difficult to prove murder," said Bod. "Charging him would be an option but I'd hope the attorney arguing the case would have a better game plan than he or she did the first time they went to trial."

Extra Credit: Hollywood is Dumb - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

There was a popular movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/) wherein a woman was convicted of her husband's murder. Not only was the woman innocent, but she also later discovered that her husband had faked his own death, and was still alive. Therefore, she resolved to kill him. After all, she had already gone to jail for his murder, so she couldn't be charged with it a second time! The double jeopardy clause left her free and clear to shoot the shmuck.

Prove that you are smarter than Hollywood. Write down at least one reason why this premise is flawed and/or stupid. Pass it in at the end of class for extra credit.

Re: Extra Credit: Hollywood is Dumb - JST06

[joan-notjane.livejournal.com]

If the courts found that the man wasn't really dead the first time, they would overturn her first sentence, thus leaving her clear to be charged a second time when the man was actually dead.

Joan decided to do the extra credit since she had missed class last week.

Talk to the TAs - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Or, rather, the TA, singular. Karla's off doing plot, so you only have Kurt this week.

Re: Talk to the TAs - JST06

[bamf-tastic.livejournal.com]

Kurt was there! You can ask him any legal questions you might have -- just don't expect him to have answers.

Talk to Alex - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

There's only ever one of her.

Re: Talk to Alex - JST06

[joan-notjane.livejournal.com]

"Ms. Cabot? I'm sorry about missing class last week," Joan said. "A friend of mine got hurt last Monday night and I was at the clinic with her all day Tuesday."

OOC - JST06

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm crashing out for long-overdue sleepland, but I will answer pings when I return.

Warning: the snowpocalypse is attempting a sequel, and we're due for another effing 6-10 inches starting tonight, so I may not be able to answer pings if we lose our stupid fucking power again.

Winter sucks.

Re: OOC - JST06

[joan-notjane.livejournal.com]

If that happens, call me.

*hugs*