An opinion piece from Bermuda about double jeopardy

[Jack]

What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.

[odeon]

At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.

Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.

I do not believe they would stop at just those few either

The slippery slope is too slippery.

I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.

How would you feel?

It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.

If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.

Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?

This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.

Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.

[odeon]

What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.

Try switching the adjectives and your argument remains the same. I am not convinced.

[Semicolon]

At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.

Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.

I do not believe they would stop at just those few either

The slippery slope is too slippery.

I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.

How would you feel?

It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.

If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.

Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?

This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.

Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.

The real question is which system you'd prefer as an innocent (or even guilty) defendant. In the criminal justice system, where the government has the most resources and power, the system should be leveling the playing field for the other side to ensure fair proceedings. While it may be an emotionally compelling argument to think about the victim, both America and England (and, I assume, Sweden and Finland) have long histories of abuse of power in criminal proceedings. These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.

[Jack]

What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.

Try switching the adjectives and your argument remains the same. I am not convinced.

The argument isn't the same. The state's right to prosecute has nothing to do with the fairness of those proceedings or their outcomes. Wasn't trying to convince of anything; only adding my viewpoint of the topic. How many times must a person be acquitted of a charge before the state must stop charging them for it? In the US that answer is one. Agree with that number and probably wont be convinced otherwise either.

[Jack]

These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.

Double jeopardy also protects those convicted as guilty from being tried again for the same charge as well. Maybe someone got a light sentence, plea-bargained for a lesser charge, got out early on good behavior. Should they should be charged and tried again to remedy that unfairness to the victims? Thinking not.

[odeon]

At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.

Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.

I do not believe they would stop at just those few either

The slippery slope is too slippery.

I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.

How would you feel?

It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.

If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.

Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?

This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.

Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.

The real question is which system you'd prefer as an innocent (or even guilty) defendant. In the criminal justice system, where the government has the most resources and power, the system should be leveling the playing field for the other side to ensure fair proceedings. While it may be an emotionally compelling argument to think about the victim, both America and England (and, I assume, Sweden and Finland) have long histories of abuse of power in criminal proceedings. These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.

Not just emotionally compelling, IMHO. It depends on who you define the system to be for. While you appear to limit the scope to the accused and the state, I think the victim should be part of it.

I was robbed once. Now, they did catch him and they did prove his guilt--the guy wasn't the most sophisticated of criminals, to be honest--but I was part of that case, and it was not just about emotions and such. It was about justice, which really is the whole point. I would have recognised that guy anywhere and if they had botched the evidence or the arrest, the system would have failed me.

I'm not advocating double jeopardy, though, not really. I don't like that idea more than the alternatives.

And yes; I could be wrong, in spite of being sure about his guilt.

[odeon]

What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.

Try switching the adjectives and your argument remains the same. I am not convinced.

The argument isn't the same. The state's right to prosecute has nothing to do with the fairness of those proceedings or their outcomes. Wasn't trying to convince of anything; only adding my viewpoint of the topic. How many times must a person be acquitted of a charge before the state must stop charging them for it? In the US that answer is one. Agree with that number and probably wont be convinced otherwise either.

In an ideal society, I'd agree with you. In an ideal society, OTOH, there would be no need to agree.

[odeon]

These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.

Double jeopardy also protects those convicted as guilty from being tried again for the same charge as well. Maybe someone got a light sentence, plea-bargained for a lesser charge, got out early on good behavior. Should they should be charged and tried again to remedy that unfairness to the victims? Thinking not.

Well, remember OJ Simpson being chased on the telly in the 90s? If memory serves, he was acquitted but then sued.

[Jack]

Well, remember OJ Simpson being chased on the telly in the 90s? If memory serves, he was acquitted but then sued.

That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.

In an ideal society, I'd agree with you. In an ideal society, OTOH, there would be no need to agree.

Not going to start talking about anarchy now, are you?

[odeon]

Well, remember OJ Simpson being chased on the telly in the 90s? If memory serves, he was acquitted but then sued.

That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.

I do, but it still highlights a design flaw in your system.

In an ideal society, I'd agree with you. In an ideal society, OTOH, there would be no need to agree.

Not going to start talking about anarchy now, are you?

[Jack]

That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.

I do, but it still highlights a design flaw in your system.

Perhaps I just don't see it.

[Semicolon]

The slippery slope is too slippery.

I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.

How would you feel?

It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.

If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.

Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?

This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.

Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.

The real question is which system you'd prefer as an innocent (or even guilty) defendant. In the criminal justice system, where the government has the most resources and power, the system should be leveling the playing field for the other side to ensure fair proceedings. While it may be an emotionally compelling argument to think about the victim, both America and England (and, I assume, Sweden and Finland) have long histories of abuse of power in criminal proceedings. These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.

Not just emotionally compelling, IMHO. It depends on who you define the system to be for. While you appear to limit the scope to the accused and the state, I think the victim should be part of it.

I was robbed once. Now, they did catch him and they did prove his guilt--the guy wasn't the most sophisticated of criminals, to be honest--but I was part of that case, and it was not just about emotions and such. It was about justice, which really is the whole point. I would have recognised that guy anywhere and if they had botched the evidence or the arrest, the system would have failed me.

I'm not advocating double jeopardy, though, not really. I don't like that idea more than the alternatives.

And yes; I could be wrong, in spite of being sure about his guilt.

To me, the victim shouldn't be a party for the same reasons that you think the victim should be included: the victim is already part of the crime. Therefore, the victim can't be impartial in the case.

As for your case, I don't know of the defendant's guilt, other than what you've told me. However, I know of other cases where eyewitness testimony convicted defendants who were later exonerated. I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue.

That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.

I do, but it still highlights a design flaw in your system.

Perhaps I just don't see it.

Perhaps it's that a defendant has to defend himself twice from the same charge.

[Jack]

Messed up my quote, Semicolon, and had to fix it.

[Semicolon]

Messed up my quote, Semicolon, and had to fix it.

I fixed it before I posted.