SENATE BILL: The Double Jeopardy Is OK...Take Two (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: bore

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator you have 24 hours to begin advocacy.

Remember our best hope is to first strengthen language regarding the evidence as it pertains to said person's guilt as opposed to just "pertaining to the crime".

[TNF]

I'm extremely leery about this, especially given what may constitute of 'evidence' may in fact be nothing of value.

[bore]

It seems to me that no one here legitimately objects to double jeopardy on pure philosophical grounds. If someone is acquitted and then it becomes very very obvious that they committed a crime, everyone would support punishing them. Given that, it doesn't seem right that there should be a hard and fast ban on prosecuting someone twice.

I don't care how exactly this amendment is phrased, but it's important we don't tie law enforcement's hand between their back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Double Jeopardy is a critical protection and its preservation is essential to protect people from frivolous prosecution. Not everyone can afford to be in court over and over again and unless there is a real strong proof that the person did it, there shouldn't an exception otherwise.

[Lumine]

It seems to me that no one here legitimately objects to double jeopardy on pure philosophical grounds. If someone is acquitted and then it becomes very very obvious that they committed a crime, everyone would support punishing them. Given that, it doesn't seem right that there should be a hard and fast ban on prosecuting someone twice.

I don't care how exactly this amendment is phrased, but it's important we don't tie law enforcement's hand between their back.

I'm tempted to agree with Bore on this one, despite some misgivings in the past version. Too often we have seen cases that reach a "conclusion" only to discover there was something else, o that mistakes were made during the investigation and trial, and so forth. Naturally, we will have to be very careful with the phrasing to avoid endless court cases (like James Arthur Williams's tour trials, even if the first three actually ended as mistrials), but we probably shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this since evidence may not (and I'd like to put emphasis in "may not", since it's hard to know at first sight) be of value.

[bore]

Double Jeopardy is a critical protection and its preservation is essential to protect people from frivolous prosecution. Not everyone can afford to be in court over and over again and unless there is a real strong proof that the person did it, there shouldn't an exception otherwise.

I agree that double jeopardy is important (and, though this is not really related, I think that a lawyer should be like an education- a good one is provided by the state, free of charge, with costs being recovered in the case of guilt) but I don't think that it should be absolute in the way that the constitution currently makes it. As I said before, I'm open to suggestions although I think most of the safeguards are better suited to legislation as opposed to the constitution.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I do suppose I'm open to this bill,
Although I think the thing's criteria
Should be extremely heavily restricted.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm extremely leery about this, especially given what may constitute of 'evidence' may in fact be nothing of value.

Yes, the innocent have a right to live peacefully after trial. We have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty for a reason. I fear that if we allowed this, innocent people would spend their lives in fear of retrial because "evidence" arose leading to another costly trial and defense.

"Absolute" is also difficult to define. Even absolutely evidence can sometimes be explained away.

[Cincinnatus]

I'm extremely leery about this, especially given what may constitute of 'evidence' may in fact be nothing of value.

Yes, the innocent have a right to live peacefully after trial. We have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty for a reason. I fear that if we allowed this, innocent people would spend their lives in fear of retrial because "evidence" arose leading to another costly trial and defense.

"Absolute" is also difficult to define. Even absolutely evidence can sometimes be explained away.

Absolute is difficult to define, I agree, and yes, it should be reasonable for people to live peacefully after trial.  However, how can we impose absolute limits on the ability to try someone again, provided evidence comes to light?  Should there be stringent restrictions?  Yes.  Should we be constitutionally unable to have retrials?  I'm not so sure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Not offering this yet, as I am unsure about the word "linking".

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm extremely leery about this, especially given what may constitute of 'evidence' may in fact be nothing of value.

Yes, the innocent have a right to live peacefully after trial. We have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty for a reason. I fear that if we allowed this, innocent people would spend their lives in fear of retrial because "evidence" arose leading to another costly trial and defense.

"Absolute" is also difficult to define. Even absolutely evidence can sometimes be explained away.

Absolute is difficult to define, I agree, and yes, it should be reasonable for people to live peacefully after trial.  However, how can we impose absolute limits on the ability to try someone again, provided evidence comes to light?  Should there be stringent restrictions?  Yes.  Should we be constitutionally unable to have retrials?  I'm not so sure.

It's so difficult to define these things though. We implement the doubt jeopardy rule because otherwise, upset victims of crimes would hail the suspect into court continuously until they just gave up.

Sure, some cases slip through the cracks and someone is wrongfully convicted or wrongfully acquitted, but no system in perfect. Writing something like this into the constitution could potentially create a nightmare for people who are accused of such crimes that they did not commit and literally put them in jail regardless of whether they are guilty or not because of constant fear of being called back into court for another "round" of evidence.

In a case where someone was acquitted and then video evidence surfaces of the crime, then maybe this would work, but how often does that happen? What about statute of limitations laws?

I have no power over amendments like this, but this is my two cents. The justice system isn't perfect, but more often than not, it works as intended.

[Cincinnatus]

Where are we on this?  It seems like there's not many variables here, and we're either going to support this version, or none...

[bore]

That amendment looks fine to me, Yankee, and I've taken the liberty of including it in the new version.

Proposing my own amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Again, here, I would be uncomfortable passing this amendment to The People at large. I just feel like the consequences, should it actually be passed, would be more harm than good. I'm interested in protecting the innocent. There is hardly ever a cut and dry case in the justice system unless you see a video of the crime occurring, and even then, there is always some explanation....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is adopted.

Where is everybody on this? Do we have seven votes right now to pass this even?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't support the current language, and can't think of any language imposing double jeopardy in some cases that I would be comfortable with.

[Lumine]

I'm on the minority here, but I support the current language.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about the everyone else?

[President Tyrion]

I think Duke has sufficiently worn me down. I don't think I can support the bill.

[Goldwater]

I'm actually with Lumine on this. I'm fine with the current wording, and I don't think there is a way to make it anymore secure. At this point it's just a matter of if you think double jeopardy is sometimes okay or not.

[DC Al Fine]

I agree with Goldwater. I have some reservations, but I don't thing there's a better wording for the bill.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm in the DC/Goldwater/Lumine camp (Never thought I'd say that sentence). While I do have reservations about people taking each other to court over and over again, I do think new crime-related evidence should be usable in a new trial if a free man (or woman) is revealed to be a murderer or an incarcerated man (or woman) is revealed to be innocent.

[Cincinnatus]

Many of you have subscribed to a viewpoint here.  Are we ready for a vote?