Do you think the double jeopardy law is a good thing or bad thing

Is ending double jeopardy a good thing

  • Good

    Votes: 4 66.7%

  • Bad

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Total voters
    6
SFTPhotography

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,926
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I used to be a supporter of the double jeopardy law but after reading this I have changed my mind

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29744552

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29933928

To summarise the perp was tried for murder and acquitted but having given their DNA consensually they were later linked to the crime and retried.

Part of me thinks the justice system should only have one bite at the cherry and you cannot just retry people, but when you read this, I think I feel differently.

Mods: this is not an outrage thread but a discussion around legal principles and justice.
 
Thing is, in my view, murder etc is not a game.
 
And this particular offender has , by all reports , done it often enough to be classified as a serial murderer.

It was his DNA that finally placed him in all the cases - and he gave it voluntarily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Double Jeopardy = Good thing. Don't let anyone try to tell you differently. Got this piece of s*** locked away for the rest of his life.
 
I think its good its been ended, certainly in this case. However, double jeopardy is a legal process and if you have successfully defended yourself and been found not guilty of a crime, if the CPS/PF think you are the crim, you can be resubjected to a trial. There has to be closure on a case at some stage.

However, for the crime of murder and sex crimes, the greater good has to be the safety of the public so perhaps its good the double jeopordy law has been got rid of
 
The court should have the right to retry if new evidence comes to light.

It's no different to a convicted criminal having the right to appeal their conviction on the same grounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H2O
The legal system managed perfectly well for 100's of years before the law was changed to allow re trials when additional evidence came to light.

When it is used properly, then it's a good thing.

I can't think of anytime it's been abused, but that charge could have been leveled at the Steven Lawrance trials had the law existed at the time of the first trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Without it. The prosecution have to make sure they have got the right man. If they get multiple chances then the risk of getting the wrong man increases.

If you had one bullet to kill hitler you'd make sure you get damn close to make it count. If you have a cluster bomb the close'ish will do
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Without it. The prosecution have to make sure they have got the right man. If they get multiple chances then the risk of getting the wrong man increases.

If you had one bullet to kill hitler you'd make sure you get damn close to make it count. If you have a cluster bomb the close'ish will do
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I am cautious of it.

Of course new evidence came come to light, particularly in terms of forensic evidence that may not have been available at a first trial, due to advances in science. But that is really the only time I think it's justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
If new evidence or more importantly new technology provides certain evidence that the previously tried and cleared individual is guilty then why not re-try them to catch the offender. All for it.
 
viv1969 said:
The court should have the right to retry if new evidence comes to light.

It's no different to a convicted criminal having the right to appeal their conviction on the same grounds.
Click to expand...


I would agree with Viv. If new evidence is available then yes.

I am sure that if it was a case of retrying without new facts and hoping the new jury came up with a different verdict the Judge would throw the case out.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Exactly, which is why I am cautious of it.

Of course new evidence came come to light, particularly in terms of forensic evidence that may not have been available at a first trial, due to advances in science. But that is really the only time I think it's justified.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with this. To avoid witch hunts by fiscals/CPS's you really need to have good reason for a retrial. Such as the above reasoning.
 
viv1969 said:
The court should have the right to retry if new evidence comes to light.
Click to expand...

Is that any different to appealing after a not guilty verdict?

Bernie174 said:
The legal system managed perfectly well for 100's of years before the law was changed to allow re trials when additional evidence came to light.
Click to expand...

So no real change now then.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I understand either of your points Steve.

Is that any different to appealing after a not guilty verdict?
Click to expand...

A re trial is the only course of appeal after a not guilty verdict. So no it's not any different, because its exactly the same thing that Viv said?????

So no real change now then.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is different now. Can't remember the year, but in around the last 20, the law was changed to allow a second trial to take place after an acquittal in certain circumstances. So, yes, it is very different from then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Steve Smith said:
Is that any different to appealing after a not guilty verdict?

Steve.
Click to expand...

Currently the prosecution can only appeal a not guilty verdict against adverse rulings by Crown Court judges in respect of trials on indictment

They can't launch an appeal based on evidenciary rulings.
 
Currently the prosecution can only appeal a not guilty verdict against adverse rulings by Crown Court judges in respect of trials on indictment
Click to expand...

Thats not an appeal inn the same way as a defendent appeals against conviction.
Its an appeal against a Judges Ruling made before summing up, and must take place by way of an adjournment of the original proceedings. It cannot and is not an appeal against finding by a Jury which is in effect what we are discussing with Double Jeopardy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Thats not an appeal inn the same way as a defendent appeals against conviction.
Its an appeal against a Judges Ruling made before summing up, and must take place by way of an adjournment of the original proceedings. It cannot and is not an appeal against finding by a Jury which is in effect what we are discussing with Double Jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Yes I know :rolleyes:
 
So, it's not double jeopardy, it can't be because the appeal can only be lodged before the Judge Sums up, so before the Jury can reach a decision and therefore a first trial has not be concluded, let alone a second bite at the cherry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Not sure I understand either of your points Steve
Click to expand...

One of them was a question, not a point.

The other was me saying that there wasn't much change if, as you pointed out, the procedure for a re-trial already exists - unless I misunderstood what you wrote.


Steve.
 
It exists now yes, but its a recent innovation.
As I said, the CJS managed for 100's of years without an appeal against finding. To which you said "So no real change now then.", so yes, there is a big change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top