8 ms·
That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a ba
by retrac 3y ago
That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like innocent until proven guilty).
It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence, the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each acquittal, and try them again.
The Americans in particular take it much further than some do; here in Canada the prosecution can appeal from an acquittal due to legal error in the decision; the prohibition on double jeopardy only applies to the entire process as a whole, after a final verdict including appeals. In the USA, a verdict issued by a jury, even at the first trial, is generally final and cannot be appealed even for reasons of legal error, while a guilty verdict can be appealed. American pluricentric power does create an odd circumstance where you can be tried twice in practice, though. If the federal government prosecutes someone for a crime, and fails to convict, if it was illegal under state law, the state government can try again under state law, or vice versa.
- graphe 3y agoInnocent until proven guilty isn't generally assumed. Look at India.
- watwut 3y agoThere is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. There should be obvious difference between "minor new development" and "major new finding". Likewise, there should be obvious difference between "potentially innocent person is in prison" and "prosecutor wants new attempt situations.
- SamBam 3y agoI'm not sure precisely what supreme court gem you're referring to, but just to be clear, double jeopardy only applies when a jury finds a person innocent. People who are found guilty can potentially have a new trial if new evidence comes to light.
- gumby 3y agoIn 2020 or January 2021 the federal Supreme Court affirmed the execution of a convict when it was demonstrated that their court appointed attorney had ignored exculpatory evidence that the accused had been elsewhere at the time of the crime. The process was considered more important than the result. There was a lot in the headlines at the time and though this made the news other things quickly drove it “off the front page” (don’t know what metaphor we should use for that expression these days).
- TeMPOraL 3y ago> There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. Is that for real? It sounds positively Cardassian. Dukat: "On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins. And it's always the same." Sisko: "In that case, why bother with a trial at all?" Dukat: "Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil every time. They find it comforting."
- watwut 3y agoYes it was real. The person was executed.
- nradov 3y agoThe USA still has a form of double jeopardy. Under our dual sovereignty system, federal and state authorities can both prosecute a defendant for the same underlying crime. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause-case/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-double...
- musicale 3y agoTriple jeopardy, since you can also be subject to a civil suit, which has a lower standard of proof.
- mynameisnoone 3y agoThere are more exceptions than just jurisdiction.