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.
