Quote:I would consider the ability for someone to be found not guilty, and then be able to freely admit to having been guilty, or for new conclusive, but unuseable evidence to be obtained, to be broken.
In that case, the prosecutor should have waited until they had more evidence before they tried the defendant.
Quote:In that case, the prosecutor should have waited until they had more evidence before they tried the defendant.
I don't think its quite that simple. The 5th amendment seems very black and white. It would technically be possible for somebody to be acquitted of murder and then show a video tape of themselves carrying the act out without repercussion. Thats broken.
I'll agree that the law should prevent endless retrials as a form of harassment or desperation, but to allow someone to be absolved of a crime where new evidence proves them guilty simply because the first trial found them not guilty seems foolish.
Quote:I don't think its quite that simple. The 5th amendment seems very black and white. It would technically be possible for somebody to be acquitted of murder and then show a video tape of themselves carrying the act out without repercussion. Thats broken.
I'll agree that the law should prevent endless retrials as a form of harassment or desperation, but to allow someone to be absolved of a crime where new evidence proves them guilty simply because the first trial found them not guilty seems foolish.
They're not absolved if conclusive new evidence comes forward. The person
can be retried but the charges have to be different in some way. It's not a broken concept whatsoever. It seems like it would be a broken concept in a case such as this, but think of the countless other cases where people completely waste the court's time trying the innocent...many prosecutors use pointless cases to boost their political standing. It's laws such as this that prevent these scumbags from getting away with too much. Corruption can only go so far before it hits a brick wall like this, so while it may seem like the ideal doesn't work in this particular case, you have to look past the wallet-sized snapshot and look at the 50x30 portrait.
Our country (England), has already abused the revoke of double jeopardy, by retrying people when they didn't like the verdict, even when no new evidence was available. The case of Nick Griffin is one I can think of, He was accused of some racism related offences, and found not guilty, so they tried again, but he was still found not guilty. I don't agree with his politics, but it annoys me that the goverment pulled this stunt. Some people would disagree with the charges ever being bought against him, as what he is alleged to have done would be viewed by many people as free speech.
I'm not sure if its the same all throughout the UK though, I believe in Scotland they have guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The not proven verdict I think has historically allowed the possibility of a retrial if new evidence is found, but I don't know the exact details of that.
I am doing my presentation in Intro to Psychology class on Tuesday about this news article. It interests me a good deal. And all your responses are just as fascinating. I personally have no and never any personal bearing on this matter, so any news on it affects me about as much as hearing that somebody I don't know in a foreign country got into a simple car accident with no majour or minor injuries would. I simply don't care.
Oh, come on Seph, we both know that you're a huge racist. Remember that time you were ranting about "All those mexicans coming illegally into the country and helping people sort through their emotional problems"?
Unfortunately, it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be imprisoned, and I'm positive that's what those laws are there for.
To be honest, I think the trial fucked over his career, and he's doing this because he has to feed his kids.