http://glasses-justice.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2010-02-09 10:00 am
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2010-02-09 10:00 am
Entry tags:
Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #6, Feb 9]
"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?"
"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?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Page 1 of 5