Consider, also, that being charged with murder is a substantial burden in itself – psychological, financial, social. You may never be seen the same again b even if you are found not guilty, and there is always a risk of extralegal retribution. The state should not bring such charges unless/until they believe they genuinely have a case that meets the required standard: “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. [Does double jeopardy only apply to capital cases? It is my impression that you can be retried for many lesser charges}
I’m sure DJ seems “unjust” to some, but many people also find it unjust that the State, having charged a defendant, may be pressed to complete the prosecution, even if the defense raises an argument (even a spurious one) that would take more time to rebut. However, the right to a speedy trial is vital. Otherwise you could be charged and given no opportunity to clear yourself in any way
Also please remember that many people remain incarcerated until trial if a) the crime is especially heinous [which is is understandable, but harsh, considering that it hasn’t even been proven that you are guilty of said crime]; b) you don’t have the resources for a high bail; or c) you do have plenty of resources, and might therefore flee to “save your life” from a death or life sentence – and honestly, how strong would “ties to the community” have to be for you to stick around for a conviction that could remove you from said community permanently anyway?
The state shouldn’t put your life and future in jeopardy unless they are sure they have the evidence. Yes, criminals do get off, but it’s also amply documented that innocent people are unjustly convicted. I think that everyone agrees that your chances of getting off increase when the assets you can bring to your defense approach or exceed those that the state can bring to your prosecution – but very few people can do that, much less the majority of people charged with murder in practice. we sleep better at night believing that false convictions are rare --and there are substantial protections-- but honestly, I think it is indeed true that the the harm to a man who is executed or spends life in prison for a crime he did not commit exceeds the harm to the community if a murderer is let off. Vengeance does not repay the community or heal the wound much. Repeat murders? Well, that’s beyond the scope of this principle, because (assuming they are convicted for the second murder) that’s little different from a murderer committing a second murder while the state takes the time to compile the airtight case they should have for a murder charge in the first place (which can take years) or while out on bail during a protracted/delayed trial.
I think an argument could be made for extending double jeopardy to other crimes – but I wouldn’t personally advocate it.
Someone please refresh my memory. There was a pretty recent case (maybe within the last 15 years) where just such a thing happened. A guy was tried for a grusome murder (I think torture was involved) and he was aquitted. Sometime later the pictures he took of the event were uncovered. They were not discovered in the initial search warrant (I think he had them hidden in the floor. He was later tried and convicted of perjury(he testified) but that only had a sentence of a couple of years. They could not retry him on murder even though they had pictures of him doing it. I saw it on Dateline or some such show but I can’t remember the exact story.
Well if this is true would it not be possible to incarcerate the man for more than a couple of years.
I realise, obviously, that perjury itself would carry a maximum penalty but despite this could not the courts/US Supreme Court/whatever powers bring some other charges/s to bear and thus ensuring that altho’ the prisoner had escaped being convicted of murder he would still spend a considerable or a even life sentence behind bars.
This leads to another question:
If a person takes the law into his own hands following an acquittal, would any courts convict that person if they knew that the original freed person had in fact been guilty
KP very well summarized.
friedo The only time I can think of were a person could be charged in the UK for a crime commited in another country would be if we applied for, and got, extradition of the criminal.
You might be thinking of the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case here in Canada, although the details are quite different. Bernardo and his wife Homolka tortured, raped and killed 2 girls. Homolka made out like Bernardo had mostly forced her into participating, and made a plea deal with the prosecution in return for testimony against Bernardo. She was given a 12 year sentence for manslaughter. Later videotapes were discovered by police that showed that Homolka was a active participant. Because she had pled guilty to the crime of manslaughter, she could not be tried for first degree murder after the tapes came out.
There is no way to know that until it happens. The person would certainly be arrested and the DA would charge them with something. If it was a parent that killed the murderer of their child then the person may be charged with anything from capital murder to some lesser type of killing. After that, it is going to be up to the jury and some juries may or may not be very sympathetic to the circumstances. Juries can still nullify (disregard) relevant laws even if they are convinced that the person was guilty of the crime but could still understand why someone would do something like that.
That’s not the standard. The standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”. If there’s a shadow of a doubt, but that shadow is not reasonable, a juror is expected to vote to convict.
All defendants are protected against double jeopardy for all crimes. If you are acquitted of stealing a loaf of bread, you can never again be charged for that particular crime. But you can certainly be convicted of stealing other loaves of bread on other occasions.
A prosecutor has to be confident enough in winning his case that he’s willing to risk an acquital. If the case is weak enough that a prosecutor is worried that a potential guilty person will walk away, they need to spend more time building their case. They get one shot, and one shot only.
After two mistrials, Byron de la Beckwith, the murderer of civil rights activist Medgar Evers became more and more open to admitting he had been the killer as the years went by. In 1994, thirty years after the two previous trials had failed to reach a verdict, Beckwith was again brought to trial based on new evidence concerning statements he made to others, including a boast made at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
One well known instance of this is the murder of Emmett Till, a black teenager murdered in Mississippi in 1955 after he whistled at a white woman. After the killers were aquitted they gave a magazine interview in which they admitted to the killings.
I would say “rarely denied,” not “never denied.” There have been cases where extradition between states has been denied - for example, in the seventies California refused to extradite Dennis Banks to South Dakota.
You could be charged of stealing that same loaf of bread if it was on a different occasion that the one you were originally charged with. Admittedly with a loaf of bread, a repeat crime seems unlikely but the same principle applies to more durable goods like a car. Just because you were exonerated of stealing your neighbour’s car this week, doesn’t mean you can go steal it with impunity next week because you can’t be recharged for stealing that particular car.
Here the prosecution can appeal from an acquittal in the magistrate’s court, and there are numerous cases on file where the acquittal has been reversed.
The War Crimes Act 1991 retroactively criminalised acts committed in WW2 by foreign nationals, against other foreign nationals, not on British territory.