Talk:Double jeopardy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Capitalisation?
Is double jeopardy used as a proper noun? I would have presumed as a legal term (if so used rather than under a more formal name) it would require double capitalisation (no pun intended!) Does anyone know? If it is a formal term used as a proper noun, then the page should be moved to [[Double Jeopardy]]. I would also presume that the TV show would use capitals in both words as TV shows almost invariably do. ÉÍREman 06:33 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
- That depends on if you want to have this article be based on a single official definition of double jeopardy or about the general concept. Every nation that uses this term will use it as a proper noun but only in reference to their definition of it. So "Double Jeopardy in the United States" would be a correct page title but the general article talking about the term would only be a common noun. --mav
[edit] Canada
Should discuss principle in Canadian law. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] The Carroll Case
The Australian case cited in relation to this principle (R V Carroll) deserves its own article (at least, it does from the perspective of a parochial Aussie ex-law student :P). Until someone with more legal knowledge than I have is able to write one, I'll link the case-name to an article on Carroll himself covering the case/s involved. BigHaz 11:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. I wrote an essay on the case last year, I'll write the article when I have it in front of me, I can't remember all the specifics. I edited what you added, I felt some of it was surplus information Psychobabble
[edit] Exceptions to Double Jeopardy
Found an external link to United States v. Felix but Findlaw only lists the appeals court case for Illinois v. Aleman. Possibly, the Supreme Court declined.
- User:Raul654: If you have a link please update.
[edit] Instances of "Haha, I really DID kill her!"
Is there any record of someone being acquitted of murder or another serious crime, only to later declare his or her guilt with full immunity due to the double jeopardy protections? 153.104.16.114 17:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, in such a case, it would be of no use, as the person has already been fully acquitted for the crime, admitting it later is of no advantage to him. However, if the person has had a reduced penalty for possible guilt then he will serve a reduced sentence and even of he declares his guilt later, he cannt be acquitted again. Now, in answer to your question, I have no idea.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Brighton trunk murder uk - Tony Mancini was acquitted in 1934 of murder - he was accused of killing his prostitute girlfriend and stuffing her body into a trunk where it was later found in his flat. Mancini's defence was that he had found her already dead, due to his criminal record he was afraid to report his finding to the police. Astonishingly the jury found him not guilty. In 1975, just before his death, he confessed the killing to journalist Stephen Knight. He wasn't tried for perjury because at that time it was a convention that lies a defendant told in his defence were exempt! User:badtypist
- Another example: Adam and Brad go to rob a house. Adam kills the owner of the house, Chuck. On the charge of murder, Adam is somehow found not guilty. If a month later at Brads murder trial Adam takes the stand and says, "Brad could'nt have killed Chuck. I killed Chuck!" Brad would most likely be found not guilty, and Adam would be protected under double jeopardy. Both scott-free of the charge of murder!! The charge of perjury on Adam from his trial, however, i havent got a clue on. HANDS HORSLEY! User:jeloij
- Brighton trunk murder uk - Tony Mancini was acquitted in 1934 of murder - he was accused of killing his prostitute girlfriend and stuffing her body into a trunk where it was later found in his flat. Mancini's defence was that he had found her already dead, due to his criminal record he was afraid to report his finding to the police. Astonishingly the jury found him not guilty. In 1975, just before his death, he confessed the killing to journalist Stephen Knight. He wasn't tried for perjury because at that time it was a convention that lies a defendant told in his defence were exempt! User:badtypist
There has been an exmaple recently (Sept '06) of someone admitting a murder under the Doubel Jeopardy Law, however they did not get immunity.
Source:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11092006/325/man-admits-murder-first-double-jeopardy-case.html
A man cleared of killing his former girlfriend 15 years ago made British legal history on Monday when he admitted her murder in the first case to go to court again following the reform of the double jeopardy law.
Billy Dunlop, 43, was formally acquitted in 1991 of murdering Julie Hogg after two juries failed to reach a verdict. However he admitted murder at Old Bailey on Monday (Advertisement) before he was due to face another trial.
His case was the first to be affected since the 2003 reform of the so-called double jeopardy rule -- an 800-year-old law which stipulated that a person once acquitted could not be tried again for the same offence.
Hogg, 22, disappeared from her home in November 1989 and her body was found by her mother, Ann Ming, behind a bath panel at her daughter's house in Billingham, northeast England, 80 days after she went missing.
In 2000, Dunlop, a former boyfriend of his victim, was jailed for six years after admitting two charges of perjury arising out of evidence he gave at the murder trials.
Last November, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled Dunlop's should be the first case to be referred for a new trial because there was "new and compelling evidence".
A tearful Ming, who had staged a long campaign to have the double jeopardy law changed, said she was "just relieved".
She said she hoped her determination to bring her daughter's killer to justice would leave a "lasting legacy" to help other families in the future.
"It's been a long and difficult journey to see him standing in the dock at court today. He's done everything he could to do to avoid justice," she told reporters.
"But his lying and scheming have eventually been all in vain."
Cleveland Police said Dunlop was an "evil and extremely dangerous man" who had got away with murder for 17 years.
MAKING HISTORY
"History has been made today but more importantly justice finally achieved for Mr and Mrs Ming," said Detective Superintendent Dave Duffy.
"Together they have fought and won a campaign to change the double jeopardy law that has been a cornerstone of British justice for 800 years."
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the reform of the law had been a "significant and welcome change".
"As this verdict shows, if acquitted of a serious crime, offenders will no longer be able to escape responsibility for their act should new and compelling evidence come to light," he said in a statement.
"At last there is justice for Julie. And for her family, especially Ann, who fought so hard for this day, even coming to parliament to tell me why we had to change the law. She was right."
[edit] Greg Domaszewicz
On 15 June 1997 a 20-month old baby, named Jaidyn Leskie, dissappeared from his home in Moe, Victoria, Australia. His body was found months later. Greg Domaszewicz, who was baby-sitting him that night, was acquitted of his murder. In the popular mind he remains the prime suspect and a second inquest continues. There has been a call for double jeopardy to be abandoned, to allow him to be re-tried, if the second Inquest reveals new evidence. This demontrates how fragile the defence might be. Avalon 11:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
WQhat happens if a mass of new evidence comes to hand? what if some/all of that evidence was deliberately withheld from the iriginal trial by one or both parties?
- That's the whole point of double jeopardy. If there was no new evidence, there'd be no point in a new trial. If you allow a re-trial where there is new evidence, you've abolished double jeopardy.
- As for the parties hiding evidence, in a criminal trial the parties are the Crown (people/state in a republic) and the defendant. The defendant has no obligation to provide evidence. If the Crown withold evidence tending to convict - why should the defendant suffer? The Crown has all the resources of the State behind it, if it cannot muster the evidence to convict & the defendant is acquitted, then, IMO the subject who is accused ought to be free of repeated attempts to find him guilty.
- Avalon 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- um....... if any evidence was withheld in the original trial and this is discovered later, it would make it a mistrial, and in the retrial the withheld evidence along with any other evidence that may have popped up since the end of the first trial is fair game, no protection by double jeopardy there. HANDS HORSLEY User:Jeloij
- I have no idea what HANDS HORSLEY is, but that information is wrong. The situation described is classic double jeopardy and the plea autrefois acquit would be available. Psychobabble 07:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United Kingdom
The abolition of the double jeopardy rule was largely a result of concern over two cases. The first was the failure to prosecute anyone over the death of Stephen Lawrence. The alleged killers were barred from re-trial after the collapse of the Lawrence family's private prosecution. The second was the collapse of the trial of Colin Stagg. He was accused of the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon common in 1993, but the judge ruled almost all of the prosecution evidence in-admissable; calling it "the worst case of entrapment I have seen". This decision caused huge disquiet amongst the police, tabloid newspapers and the tabloid minded (ie politicians). All proceeded to discuss the case as if Stagg had been convicted. As of 2006 it is clear that no new evidence will ever come forward in the Lawrence case. In 2004 DNA evidence appears to prove Stagg's innocence beyond any doubt. I believe the current Damilola Taylor murder case is the first time it has been used - if it is the fact is obviously subject to a news blackout. If the boys are found not guilty in a second trial it will raise great questions about the whole process.User:badtypist
This section also needs some amending to include the other nations of the United Kingdom. If it's a law that just affects England then fair enough. If it's a law in place in the other parts of the U.K. then they need some mention too. Snowbound 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Purpose
So, what was the purpose of Double jeopardy? What was it attempting to prevent?
- I just wrote a blog post on that question :) Psychobabble 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] USA
This article is exceedingly weak on almost all counts, but especially in re the US. There is no mention, for instance, of Witte v US, which prompted Justice Stevens, in US v Watts, to write that, " I continue to disagree with the conclusion reached by the Court in Witte, that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit convicting and sentencing an individual for conduct that has been decisive in determining the individual's offense level for a previous conviction." How can an article an issue of such juridical importance and constitutional moment have zero footnotes and one lone external link? The standard Wikipedian retort is, "Then you should improve the article yourself," but Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't ask me to improve its articles, nor should I have to. Nor should students and other persons doing research get half-fast information until a proper article is written. Yes, I know that the Wikipedians play this cute game wherein they disingenuously exclaim that nobody should rely on Wikipedia for accurate information. Nicmart 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- It may help to note that Encyclopedia Britannica has paid staff who write about such things and wikipedians don't get paid... plus they tend to edit articles they are interested in. Since you seem interested in this subject, I suggest that "you should improve the article yourself", as you so nicely observed. :) --hydkat 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The basic problem is that for many advanced fields like law, professors and graduate students don't get official recognition for contributing to Wikipedia, which means that most law-trained Wikipedia contributors are practicing attorneys (like myself) and law students, who have to squeeze Wikipedia edits into their already heavy workload. With my leisure time severely constrained by my career at the moment, I have higher priority articles to worry about like Lawyer and State Bar of California. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
