3 ms·

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

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.
    - suifbwish 5y ago
      You just contradicted yourself. The Magna Carta exists to limit the power of the king and thus serves to benefit the common people. It was one of the most important documents for putting the tyrannical age of kings to an end. Like emperors there were few good kings.
      - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        The Magna Carta grants rights to barons, not common people. Unless you were a baron, it was pretty irrelevant to you.
        kfprt 5y ago
        In other words the decentralization of power from 'dieu and mon droit' to a legal contract. This is definitely in the direction of 'the common people'.
        fmajid 5y ago
        The king is distant and does not have direct interest in suppressing individual uppity peasants. The local lord can deliver individualized oppression. Generally, centralization of royal authority, specially in matters of justice, led to an improvement in the common people's situation.

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.
  - suifbwish 5y ago
    You just contradicted yourself. The Magna Carta exists to limit the power of the king and thus serves to benefit the common people. It was one of the most important documents for putting the tyrannical age of kings to an end. Like emperors there were few good kings.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      The Magna Carta grants rights to barons, not common people. Unless you were a baron, it was pretty irrelevant to you.
      - kfprt 5y ago
        In other words the decentralization of power from 'dieu and mon droit' to a legal contract. This is definitely in the direction of 'the common people'.
        fmajid 5y ago
        The king is distant and does not have direct interest in suppressing individual uppity peasants. The local lord can deliver individualized oppression. Generally, centralization of royal authority, specially in matters of justice, led to an improvement in the common people's situation.