SENATE BILL: The Double Jeopardy Is OK Sometimes Amendment (Failed)

[DC Al Fine]

Nay

[Goldwater]

NAY

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[TNF]

Isn't this how the law works in real life?

Abstain for now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This amendment has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.


Since the result is a foregone conclusion, I am going to vote NAY because I don't don't think their is adequate definition and detail regarding the evidence needed to be present. "Pertaining to the case" is rather weak and could lead to problems.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Senate Passage of The Double Jeopard Is Ok Sometimes Amendment:

Aye (4): bore, Lumine, Talleyrand, and TyriontheImperialist
Nay (5): DC al Fine, Goldwater, Mr X, NC Yankee, and shua
Abstain (1): TNF

With five votes in the negative and time having expired, the Amendment has been rejected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Two clarifications would have yielded two more aye votes. Still would have been short by one but I cannot help but think this could have passed.

[Napoleon]

I see this has been reintroduced by ideally it will meet the same fate. Double jeapordy protections are not to benefit criminals, its to benefit the accused from overzealous prosecution. By preventing double jeapordy, prosecutors must obtain solid evidence before pressing charges, especially protecting poor minorities that can't afford lawyers/to spend time in court away from work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I see this has been reintroduced by ideally it will meet the same fate. Double jeapordy protections are not to benefit criminals, its to benefit the accused from overzealous prosecution. By preventing double jeapordy, prosecutors must obtain solid evidence before pressing charges, especially protecting poor minorities that can't afford lawyers/to spend time in court away from work.

That indeed may be true that it is doomed.

One of the reasons that I think there must be a stronger condition then, "pertaining to the case". IT could invite an open season with only loosely connected evidence to the previously acquitted being used to drag them back into court frivolously disrupting their lives and ruining them financially.