Canada does have a double jeopardy rule, similar to that of the US. However, in Morgentaler’s case, he was tried and ultimately convicted in Quebec on one charge of performing an illegal abortion. He was later tried and acquitted in Quebec on another charge of performing another illegal abortion, some years later, with a different woman - in other words, a new alleged offence. He was later tried and acquitted of performing another illegal abortion some years later in Ontario, with a different woman, another separate alleged offence. In other words, three separate sets of facts, two different provinces, three separate acts on his part, and three different alleged offences.
In neither the US nor in Canada would the second and third cases be considered double jeopardy.
Allowing someone to potentially be tried over and over again seem very cruel. Imagine the stress and emotional toll of a murder trial. You’re acquitted, financially ruined, no job, and your reputation in shreds. Then six years later, just when life is returning to normal it starts back all over again with new evidence and a new trial. That’s beyond horrible.
Double jeopardy forces prosecutors to proceed cautiously and slowly. It’s not unusual for them to wait a year or more to press charges if a case is shaky. They keep digging for evidence until its strong enough for trial.
I strongly support double jeopardy. Prosecutors only deserve that one shot at proving a case, unless it ends in a mistrial or hung jury.
It’s worth pointing out that Double Jeopardy protection in the U.S. has been under attack for decades.
There’s been several cases where people acquitted in State courts have been retried in Federal. The cops in the Rodney King case are the best example. Several went to Federal prison after being acquitted in their state trial.
Also, another legal trick is to retry someone in a Civil Trial. OJ is the best example there. The old theory was acquittal in a criminal case meant you couldn’t be found guilty in a civil case for murdering someone. But they rewrote the case law for OJ.
No, having been found innocent in a criminal trial is part of a defense at a civil trial but it’s not considered proof of innocence. The standard of proof is lower at a civil trial so a person could be found innocent at a criminal trial and guilty at a civil trial.
And it’s not a legal trick because civil trials are between individuals not the government.
I’ve only read about a few murder cases in civil court.
There was one in Louisiana where a frightened homeowner shot a Japanese exchange student on Halloween. The teens English wasn’t very good and he didn’t understand the homeowners warnings. The homeowner was acquitted in the criminal case. He freely admitted the shooting in self defense. He lost in the civil suit and lost a pile of money.
OJ was different because he always claimed that he had nothing to do with the murders. He was acquitted in the criminal case. The Civil Case was literally a retrial of the facts and they had the huge advantage of a lower burden of proof. Plus OJ was broke and couldn’t afford to hire his legal team from the criminal case.
No one cried any tears over OJ. But it was a ugly use of Double Jeopardy. I don’t like the guy, but it bothers me seeing the law used like that.
But you seem to think it was something new - it wasn’t. The Constitution’s restriction on double jeopardy only applies in criminal matters, not civil, and it only restricts governments, not private citizens like the plaintiffs. The OJ civil case may be the best known case of a subsequent civil action, but it wasn’t re-writing the law of double jeopardy in any way.
I understand the principles behind the prohibition on retrying someone for the same crime, and i recognize that it comes from a very real concern about arbitrary and capricious government power. The burden of proof in criminal proceedings should be high, and there should also be mechanisms to prevent the state from taking multiple bites at the cherry based on limited and unconvincing new evidence.
However, i’ve also never been completely convinced, as a matter of principle, that the prohibition on double jeopardy should be absolute. Of course, some might argue that any weakening of the rules against double jeopardy would constitute a dangerously slippery slope, but i believe that there are mechanisms that could be placed within the legal system in order to ensure that certain standards needed to be met in order to clear the hurdle.
I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying that, because i’m not a gung-ho, strap-em-down, law and order fanatic, and i recognize that the American criminal justice system has plenty of problems already without adding another way for corrupt of self-seeking DAs to pursue possibly innocent people. Still the almost absolute nature of the prohibition on double jeopardy doesn’t sit completely comfortably with me either.
I am perhaps the most anti-law and order guy I know, I think all juries should be instructed by the judge that they have the right to nullify for example.
BUT I don’t know that I would have a problem with the following scenario:
Guy put on trial for rape and murder of woman, he is acquitted but DNA evidence did not exist at the time. Later a semen sample collected from the victim is tested and it is a match with the accused, in a case like that I don’t know that I would oppose a new trial.
As long as there are some limits(only the most serious of offenses, perhaps a time limit for new evidence so they aren’t going after 80 year olds).
I just never heard of anyone getting sued after being exonerated in a criminal trial. OJ was the first I can recall. Robert Blake got the same deal. Acquitted and then hammered with a civil judgement. I guess this has been happening all along and I just never heard about it.
Usually it works the other way. If you’re found guilty in a criminal matter, then it’s almost automatic that any injured parties will sue your ass off in a civil case.
If there was a double jeopardy rule over criminal and civil cases, I could see it being manipulated.
A corporation that was dumping chemicals, for example, might seek out criminal charges. If, due to the higher standard of proof, they were found not guilty of the criminal charges they would then be immune from any liability lawsuits. Worst case scenario, they lose the criminal trial with a fine that’s less than the damages they would have paid in a civil trial.
Agreed. Also, criminal and civil law have different objectives. The first is to punish the crime committed against society in general. The second is to provide compensation to the victims of your activity.
For example, say I run you over with my car causing you $30k in medical expenses. The jury convicts me of aggravated battery and I do a year in jail and pay a $10k fine. That’s great and all, but how does it pay your medical bills? You need that civil suit to get paid.
But say a jury found me not guilty on the aggravated battery charge. Not guilty is not a statement of actual innocence. It just says that the state didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is fine for a criminal standard, but in a case between individual parties, we use the preponderance of the evidence standard.
So in a situation where the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that I ran you over with the car, but not enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt, it is appropriate that I have to pay you damages, but not go to jail.
Well, sort of. People like OJ and Robert Blake were somewhat unusual in that they had money.
Your more typical murderer may not have a whole lot of assets to pursue, and insurance policies aren’t likely to cover homicide. Not much point in suing someone who is essentially judgment-proof.
But by the same token, most people aren’t going to have a bunch of money to spend defending against a liability judgment. So it’s actually not uncommon for somebody to be convicted of murder and have their victim’s family file a civil lawsuit against them. If there’s no legal battle involved it’s mostly just some paperwork and it’s probably only going to cost a few hundred dollars. Some people find it worth it to know that if the guy who killed their family member ever does make any money, he won’t be able to keep it.
Charles Manson is an example. Guns N’ Roses, Marilyn Manson, Henry Rollins, and White Zombie have recorded songs he wrote. But Manson doesn’t get the royalties. They go to the Frykowski family, which donates them to a charity.
This is a good example, particularly if you consider that it’s the state that is responsible for the prosecution. What if the state screws up? Maybe the cop didn’t mirandize the driver, so his statement that he was driving gets tossed and that’s the reason for the acquittal. Or maybe the prosecutor does a particularly lousy job in running the case (e.g. forgets to call a key witness).
You’re the victim of an accident and need medical bills paid. Maybe you’re so badly injured that you lose your job and will have trouble working again. Should you be bound by the mistakes of the state? if the state does a bad job, should that bar you from suing to have your injuries compensated?
The answer is no, you’re not bound by the mistakes of the state - they are two separate types of proceedings, and the fact that the state doesn’t get a conviction doesn’t bar you from trying to recover monetary damages for your injuries.
Apologies, haven’t revisited for about a day. However there are some different ideas here to what I am aware of.
Firstly, the Government prosecuting. The Government does not prosecute (in any jurisdiction I am aware of). It is an arm of the Government- such as Attorney General or a Police Force who swear out a complaint. If it is a high profile case the Govt may indeed instruct its agencies to keep pursuing the persons (CHristopher Skase).
Here, at least, before I could mount a prosecution, the Brief would have to be reviewed by the Government Solicitor of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That was a check. I could not relentlessly pursue an individual because i thought they were guilty- it is checks and balances.
And Little Nemo, I notice that is post #26 above you say to not get hung up on technicalities. However, it is a vast difference to be found not guilty, rather than being found innocent. In Scottish Law there is a verdict of “Not Proven”.
Being found not guilty has never equated to being found innocent.
I think we’re running into a vocabulary difference. I’ve noticed that US-speak tends to use “the government” broadly, to include all aspects of government, including the public service, while in Commonwealth-speak, “the government” is used more narrowly, to mean the government of the day, the elected politicians. In my vocabulary, I wouldn’t use “government” to refer to the prosecutors, who are non-partisan professional public servants, not elected officials, but I’ve seen posters here use “the government” to refer to the prosecutors.