4 ms·

England is basically a third world country in terms of legal rights. They brought back double jeopardy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Post-2003

by kfprt 5y ago

England is basically a third world country in terms of legal rights. They brought back double jeopardy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Post-2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Post-2003

LatteLazy 5y ago
And equally shit with any sort of tech law. The couple were quite lucky. For a while there was about a 5 year backlog of computers (plus phones, ipad etc) waiting for the police to even look at. Imagine waiting 5 years to be cleared of this...
theduder99 5y ago
I don't really understand the concept here. Taken to the extreme: a murderer is acquitted then the next day concrete evidence is found proving their guilt 100%, do they still walk free because they can't be tried again?
- mhuffman 5y ago
  That is correct, but the intent of the double jeopardy laws are to stop people from being perpetually retried for a crime by someone that is convinced they have the right person (ie. every cop and DA that ever lived!) and holding the threat of that over them the rest of their life even though the case has already been adjudicated. What you described is an unfortunate loophole in this concept.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    The UK requires 'substantial' new evidence to re-try a case. So far, it seems that hasn't been widely abused in the way you suggest. A court is the one who decides if new evidence is substantial or not - simple things like 'we found 11 of his footprints in the snow, but a re-re-review of the photos actually finds 12!" wouldn't cut it...
    - Karunamon 5y ago
      So it's a non-objective definition that depends on things like when the judge ate lunch. [1] I'm more a fan of the "better a hundred guilty go free" model - in this case, that means the state gets one and only one bite at the apple, and they'd better do it right the first time. Fewer dragons on this road. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-b...
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        You're exaggerating a bit. It's not completely objective, that's true, but... "the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence"". I think this is reasonable - there's checks and balances in place to make sure that the evidence really is 'new and compelling'. You're muddying the waters a bit with this 'better a hundred guilty go free' thing - you might as well not bother ever arresting someone then? Surely this should be tested at trial, which is exactly what will happen (it's not 'oh we found compelling new evidence so we're putting you in prison even though we found you not guilty before', it's 'we found compelling new evidence, so we're going to give a new jury the opportunity to hear the new evidence and decide if they also think you're not guilty')
    - suifbwish 5y ago
      Keep in mind these laws exist because of how messed up European kings and queens were throughout the last several centuries. The Magna Carta exists because classical European governments could not be trusted. Why should they be now?
      - fmajid 5y ago
        The Magna Carta exists because King John was trying to rein in the power of the barons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with helping the common people.
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  In addition to what @mhuffman said, it is to incentivize the police and DA to look at every nook and cranny. The job of proving guilt rests with them, not the defendant. If they messed up, it’s not the defendant’s fault, so why should they suffer? (As @mhuffman referenced with new DAs)

by kfprt 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago

And equally shit with any sort of tech law. The couple were quite lucky. For a while there was about a 5 year backlog of computers (plus phones, ipad etc) waiting for the police to even look at. Imagine waiting 5 years to be cleared of this...

theduder99 5y ago

I don't really understand the concept here. Taken to the extreme: a murderer is acquitted then the next day concrete evidence is found proving their guilt 100%, do they still walk free because they can't be tried again?

mhuffman 5y ago
That is correct, but the intent of the double jeopardy laws are to stop people from being perpetually retried for a crime by someone that is convinced they have the right person (ie. every cop and DA that ever lived!) and holding the threat of that over them the rest of their life even though the case has already been adjudicated. What you described is an unfortunate loophole in this concept.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  The UK requires 'substantial' new evidence to re-try a case. So far, it seems that hasn't been widely abused in the way you suggest. A court is the one who decides if new evidence is substantial or not - simple things like 'we found 11 of his footprints in the snow, but a re-re-review of the photos actually finds 12!" wouldn't cut it...
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    So it's a non-objective definition that depends on things like when the judge ate lunch. [1] I'm more a fan of the "better a hundred guilty go free" model - in this case, that means the state gets one and only one bite at the apple, and they'd better do it right the first time. Fewer dragons on this road. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-b...
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      You're exaggerating a bit. It's not completely objective, that's true, but... "the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence"". I think this is reasonable - there's checks and balances in place to make sure that the evidence really is 'new and compelling'. You're muddying the waters a bit with this 'better a hundred guilty go free' thing - you might as well not bother ever arresting someone then? Surely this should be tested at trial, which is exactly what will happen (it's not 'oh we found compelling new evidence so we're putting you in prison even though we found you not guilty before', it's 'we found compelling new evidence, so we're going to give a new jury the opportunity to hear the new evidence and decide if they also think you're not guilty')
  - suifbwish 5y ago
    Keep in mind these laws exist because of how messed up European kings and queens were throughout the last several centuries. The Magna Carta exists because classical European governments could not be trusted. Why should they be now?
    - fmajid 5y ago
      The Magna Carta exists because King John was trying to rein in the power of the barons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with helping the common people.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
colejohnson66 5y ago
In addition to what @mhuffman said, it is to incentivize the police and DA to look at every nook and cranny. The job of proving guilt rests with them, not the defendant. If they messed up, it’s not the defendant’s fault, so why should they suffer? (As @mhuffman referenced with new DAs)