Double jeopardy law scraped from tommorow.
Discussion
I have mixed emotions about this on the one hand it helps to align the criminal justice system more closely with 'justice' something it has become increasing divorced from.
But on the other hand the double jeopardy law is one of a number of laws designed to protect the individual from the over mighty state.
I think on reflection that justice wins over principle and that this proposal is a good thing.
But on the other hand the double jeopardy law is one of a number of laws designed to protect the individual from the over mighty state.
I think on reflection that justice wins over principle and that this proposal is a good thing.
Jaglover said:
I have mixed emotions about this on the one hand it helps to align the criminal justice system more closely with 'justice' something it has become increasing divorced from.
But on the other hand the double jeopardy law is one of a number of laws designed to protect the individual from the over mighty state.
I think on reflection that justice wins over principle and that this proposal is a good thing.
I think the best way of giving this a positive spin would be to re-try the guys that murdered Stephen Lawrence.
Yes, does'nt change my views. If a court of your peers finds you not guilty of a crime then you are, in the eyes of the law at least.. not guilty of the crime.
What this now means is that no one will ever actually be aquitted of a crime, being found 'not guilty' will mean.. well, we still think your guilty, but could'nt prove it. It changes the whole fabric our legal system operates on.. that is, Innocent unless PROVEN guilty.
They are just changeing it to.. Your Guilty, we will keep trying you till you're found so.
Its a shocking piece of Legislation!
>> Edited by vixpy1 on Monday 4th April 01:05
What this now means is that no one will ever actually be aquitted of a crime, being found 'not guilty' will mean.. well, we still think your guilty, but could'nt prove it. It changes the whole fabric our legal system operates on.. that is, Innocent unless PROVEN guilty.
They are just changeing it to.. Your Guilty, we will keep trying you till you're found so.
Its a shocking piece of Legislation!
>> Edited by vixpy1 on Monday 4th April 01:05
I am on the Anti Side.
If the court system is fair and true, and you are found to be not guilty, then you are not guily of that crime in law.
If they arent sure, then they should move to have the case dismissed thru insufficient evidence.
I dont want to see people being dragged and redragged thru court simply as they upset someone in the Justice Department / Government, the costs will be horrendous.
NOW, if we cant TRUST our courts (and juries) to make a rational and binding judgement, THAT, is another matter altogether.
This is not a good thing for humanity.
If the court system is fair and true, and you are found to be not guilty, then you are not guily of that crime in law.
If they arent sure, then they should move to have the case dismissed thru insufficient evidence.
I dont want to see people being dragged and redragged thru court simply as they upset someone in the Justice Department / Government, the costs will be horrendous.
NOW, if we cant TRUST our courts (and juries) to make a rational and binding judgement, THAT, is another matter altogether.
This is not a good thing for humanity.
I would have to disagree.
It’s right and proper that if new evidence come to light that a convicted man is innocent of the crime he is released from prison and his conviction is quashed.
The same should apply if evidence is found that indicate an acquitted man is likely to be guilty. Then he should stand trial again. He would still remain Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
To suggest that a person would be tried ad infinitum until a conviction is secured. Is rather silly.
It’s right and proper that if new evidence come to light that a convicted man is innocent of the crime he is released from prison and his conviction is quashed.
The same should apply if evidence is found that indicate an acquitted man is likely to be guilty. Then he should stand trial again. He would still remain Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
To suggest that a person would be tried ad infinitum until a conviction is secured. Is rather silly.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff