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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bore]

I don't think there is much more to be said.

[bore]

Aye

I can tell this is going to be one of those weird votes

[bore]

Well we tried, bore.

Still too early to end it though.

It was worth a go