# How is the double jeopardy "loophole" beneficial or acceptable? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 15, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607 "2013-07-15T22:54:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/81 "2013-07-17T03:33:13Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Both, although it is a loaded false dichotomy question. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Yeah. I meant to say “and/or”. In ordinary English, “or” encompasses “and/or.” It is not necessary to specify. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/82 "2013-07-17T03:35:51Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I see them exactly as you have said. I interpret them differently. The fact that you quoted me quoting them shows that you are insincere in your accusation that I didn’t read them. I don’t read them as you do. This isn’t “great debates” where we take a side for the sake of argument. You’ve shared your opinion that you, as a juror, would find him guilty of manslaughter. That’s not what I said, actually. And if you read the instructions – in their entirety – can you explain why you insisted that ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent were not an element of second degree murder, when in fact they appear clearly, explicitly, verbatim in those instructions? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/83 "2013-07-17T03:45:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > In ordinary English, “or” encompasses “and/or.” It is not necessary to specify. I think in ordinary English that equivalency would depend on context and intonation. Since this is a written medium my sentence, standing alone so as to convey little context, could easily be read as intending only “or” or “and/or”. Istm ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/84 "2013-07-17T04:28:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not what I said, actually. And if you read the instructions – in their entirety – can you explain why you insisted that ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent were not an element of second degree murder, when in fact they appear clearly, explicitly, verbatim in those instructions? They are part of the definition of imminent danger as I mentioned. What you need to answer is why you, a noted conservative, would not, as a juror in this case, not find second degree murder. I find it utterly implausible that you personally as a juror would not find Zimmerman’s actions to meet the three elements. > [@](#): > > SECOND DEGREE MURDER > To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three > elements beyond a reasonable doubt: > 1. > Trayvon Martin is dead. > 2. > The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman. > 3. > There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous > to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life If you want to dwell on the definition of imminently dangerous, or the sub-elements of imminently dangerous as you might prefer to call them: > [@](#): > > is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent I don’t see how it gets you off as a responsible juror for doing your duty and convicting Zimmerman. As I’ve mentioned before this is a 28 year old man carrying a gun going around his neighborhood stalking a minor, getting out of his car, with the gun still, approaching the minor who is now terrified and engaging in an argument and shooting the lad dead. Without his statements that is ill will, hatred, spite and evil intent. With his statements, it is plain that he intended to accost Martin under suspicion of intent to burglarize without any reason. I think that is a nasty, hateful, spiteful and evil thing to do before he shot the young man dead. The fact that Zimmerman is going around the neighborhood patrolling with his car and his gun and assuming every minor he sees is someone getting away with something criminal and he intends to stop them is the very definition of ill will, hatred, spite and evil intent. That you want to parse ill will, hatred, spite and evil intent into four separate Himalayan ranges and make rhetorical mountains of each is pretty much par for the course for the fellow who makes everything an exercise in rhetoric. But it is not following the duty of a juror to convict a guy who sought out an argument, with gun in hand and killed a minor. It was despicable of the jury to abandon their duty in this case. What my past few posts have left out is the obvious and what I pointed out earlier on: this happened because Martin was black and Zimmerman hated black people. I think the jury felt the same way. It is utterly inconceivable to me that if Zimmerman had been a black man and Martin a white teenager that in Florida that he would not have been convicted of second degree murder. In my heart I know this is true. And I suspect you do too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/85 "2013-07-17T14:17:22Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > They are part of the definition of imminent danger as I mentioned. > > What you need to answer is why you, a noted conservative, would not, as a juror in this case, not find second degree murder. I find it utterly implausible that you personally as a juror would not find Zimmerman’s actions to meet the three elements. If the jury had done so, the verdict would have been set aside on appeal. Other cases have suffered the same fate, and from them we learn what is, and is not, “malice, spite, hatred, or ill-will” in Florida. In Light v. State, cited extensively in previous threads: > [@](#): > > extremely reckless behavior itself is insufficient from which to infer any malice. . . the crime of second-degree murder is normally committed by a person who knows the victim and has had time to develop a level of enmity toward the victim. . . . You can’t – or shouldn’t, anyway – as a juror insist on using your own peculiar ideas to create facts that weren’t in evidence, and to define words differently than the caselaw of the state does. > [@](#): > > this happened because Martin was black and Zimmerman hated black people. Nope. No evidence of that at trial. You cannot being your ugly prejudices into the jury room. People like you occasionally try; fortunately, they are usually caught at voir dire. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/86 "2013-07-17T16:06:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the jury had done so, the verdict would have been set aside on appeal. > > Other cases have suffered the same fate, and from them we learn what is, and is not, “malice, spite, hatred, or ill-will” in Florida. In Light v. State, cited extensively in previous threads: > > You can’t – or shouldn’t, anyway – as a juror insist on using your own peculiar ideas to create facts that weren’t in evidence, and to define words differently than the caselaw of the state does. > > Nope. No evidence of that at trial. You cannot being your ugly prejudices into the jury room. People like you occasionally try; fortunately, they are usually caught at voir dire. If there was no evidence of it, there wouldn’t have been an instruction. As for your insistence that a guilty verdict would have been overturned on appeal, you are being naive. As for your insistence that my finding of Zimmerman’s motives to be prejudiced, again you are being naive. Switch the races of the principles, and find me a case where a black man stalked a white teenager who was doing nothing but walking and started a fight and shot him dead and walked away with an acquittal. Or, if you cannot find that, find a conviction only on manslaughter and acquittal on murder. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/87 "2013-07-17T18:08:27Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > As for your insistence that a guilty verdict would have been overturned on appeal, you are being naive. One of us accurately predicted the jury’s finding in advance. The other of us insists that all six members of the jury failed to do their duty. One of us has advanced claims that are echoed by the vast majority of legal commentators covering the issue. The other insists that it’s irrelevant what all the lawyers say; he’s right and they’re wrong. Which one sounds naive? ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/88 "2013-07-17T19:39:10Z")
Folks, can we please **leave the Zimmerman stuff IN the Zimmerman threads!!** However you feel about the verdict, this is not the appropriate thread for that discussion. Let’s get back to the “Is it okay to face two or more trials for the same action?” discussion. It’s definitely legal, if an action is subject to multiple legal jurisdictions (federal vs. state, criminal vs. civil). However, is that an active decision by the legislatures (state and federal)? Or just an inability to enact laws preventing it and force the judiciary to accept it (no court is going to limit their authority without a very compelling reason). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/89 "2013-07-17T19:45:12Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > Folks, can we please > **leave the Zimmerman stuff IN the Zimmerman threads!!** > > However you feel about the verdict, this is not the appropriate thread for that discussion. > > Let’s get back to the “Is it okay to face two or more trials for the same action?” discussion. > > It’s definitely legal, if an action is subject to multiple legal jurisdictions (federal vs. state, criminal vs. civil). However, is that an active decision by the legislatures (state and federal)? Or just an inability to enact laws preventing it and force the judiciary to accept it (no court is going to limit their authority without a very compelling reason). In the criminal realm, successive state and federal prosecutions for the same acts is legal because the Supreme Court says it’s legal, and they’re the ones with final authority to interpret the Double Jeopardy Clause’s meaning. See Bartkus v. Illinois, a 1960s era case, for a good discussion of the issue. Nothing would stop Congress from passing a law forbidding the United States to prosecute a crime that’s previously been the subject of a state prosecution; nothing would prevent a state from passing a law forbidding a state criminal prosecution following a federal criminal one. As to civil cases, the Double Jeopardy Clause has never been understood to prevent civil trials following criminal prosecutions. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/90 "2013-07-17T19:59:32Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > It’s definitely legal, if an action is subject to multiple legal jurisdictions (federal vs. state, criminal vs. civil). However, is that an active decision by the legislatures (state and federal)? Or just an inability to enact laws preventing it and force the judiciary to accept it (no court is going to limit their authority without a very compelling reason). Look at it this way: if you run over a little girl, should the family be denied the right to sue you for damages because the government is trying you for manslaughter? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/91 "2013-07-17T22:51:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One of us accurately predicted the jury’s finding in advance. The other of us insists that all six members of the jury failed to do their duty. One of us has advanced claims that are echoed by the vast majority of legal commentators covering the issue. The other insists that it’s irrelevant what all the lawyers say; he’s right and they’re wrong. > > Which one sounds naive? A verdict that you admit you disagree with as far as voluntary manslaughter. What you have done is predict various outcomes in various capacities, covering most of the bases. I’ll ask again: reverse the races of the principals. The teenager with Skittles is white, and the man who winds up shooting him after following him (but not on his own property) is black. Same result? Answer as honestly as you did about the manslaughter verdict. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/92 "2013-07-17T23:02:50Z")
> **[Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](https://www.yahoo.com/)** > > Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo! Well, count me wrong. I found one close enough. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/93 "2013-07-17T23:27:25Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > A verdict that you admit you disagree with as far as voluntary manslaughter. What you have done is predict various outcomes in various capacities, covering most of the bases. I have always (I think) written about this carefully and precisely. I don’t disagree with the verdict: if I had been a juror, based on the evidence this jury saw, I would have also voted to acquit. I do believe that Zimmerman was in fact guilty of manslaughter – and by the way, stop with the “voluntary manslaughter;” in Florida there’s only manslaughter and aggravated manslaughter, the latter triggered by killing certain occupations or ages, such as a fireman or a toddler. But I hope you see the difference. I personally believe that if an NSA-style video monitor had captured the entire event, we would have sufficient evidence for a manslaughter conviction. In other words, I think, factually, Zimmerman’s acts constituted manslaughter. But he should not be convicted of that charge. I hope the reason for that is crystal clear. > [@](#): > > I’ll ask again: reverse the races of the principals. The teenager with Skittles is white, and the man who winds up shooting him after following him (but not on his own property) is black. Same result? Answer as honestly as you did about the manslaughter verdict. I always answer honestly. And my answer is: maybe not, for a very simple reason. Money. The state still marshals its forces to convict Black Zimmerman. But the donations don’t pour in, and the defense can’t hire the voice expert, do independent interviews, and field such a strong case. As it was, they spent more than the million bucks Zimmerman collected. No way a private attorney can take this case for the free publicity AND dig into his own pocket to fund those expenses. Now I’ll prove my thesis, with a what-if back to you. Black Zimmerman is the son of Michael Jordan, who can drop ten million dollars on the defense team without blinking. What happens then? It’s not about black and white in today’s courtrooms, my friend. It’s about green. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/94 "2013-07-18T01:02:01Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > Or just an inability to enact laws preventing it and force the judiciary to accept it (no court is going to limit their authority without a very compelling reason). Courts limit their authority quite frequently. Google “jurisdiction.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607/95 "2013-07-18T01:16:16Z")
Interestingly, **Bone** is making a superficially similar (though fundamentally quite different) argument in the SYG thread: > [@SYG laws Post-Zimmerman](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/107): > > I disagree that it is not a gun rights issue. It is boh gun rights and policy. Part of expansive gun rights is the ability to exercise armed self defense. The fact that doing so can also bankrupt a person due to civil liability is something that should be changed as a matter of policy. > > I think people who support gun control will in large majorities favor imposing a duty to retreat and gun rights advocates will line up on the other side. Gun control advocates have pursued many avenues towards their goals and increasing the burden on gun owners through a duty to retreat is one. Is that a point of contention or do you concede that? > > And while i dont subscribe to the appeal to popularity - do you have evidence that those groups in the majority feelas you’ve stated? Does this appeal to popularity hold for other areas as well - the fact that 40 of 50 states are ahall issue or constitutional carry shed light that the others should follow suit? Those states clearly believe that is good policy - what are the others missing? I don’t think the popularity itself is compelling other than such examples can provide evidence to refute claims of he wild west. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-double-jeopardy-loophole-beneficial-or-acceptable/663607.md?page=4)