Double Jeopardy In Supreme Court Cases

2316 Words10 Pages
Double Jeopardy Kimmer Brooks Professor Nancy McGill English 111 31J 29 November 2007 Brooks 1 Kimmer D. Brooks Professor McGill English 111 29 November 2007 Double Jeopardy Over two hundred years ago our forefathers wrote our Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment deals with what was called Double Jeopardy, and it guarantees that, “no person… shall… be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Wiet 1996). The Supreme Court has established Double Jeopardy falls into three categories. The first category is “It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal.” Second, “it protects from a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction.” Lastly, “it…show more content…
Schools today have zero tolerance rules to expel students and then refer them to juvenile or criminal court for further punishment of the same offense. Often times, school report misconduct to law enforcement agencies. “According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ (1996-1997 study on violence in schools) approximately 430,000 were arrested for incidents occurring on school grounds. Only approximately, 20,000 involved incidents of a serious or violent nature” (Anderson 1194). “Missouri state law requires such reporting for the possession of weapons, distribution of drugs, assault, and instances of property damage” (Anderson 1194). In researching this topic, it was found that in New South Wales and Queensland, they are trying to revise the double jeopardy rule. It is suggested there should be a Criminal Appeal Amendment. It allows a person that had been acquitted of a very serious crime to be retried where there is fresh and compelling new evidence (Burton 2004). In agreement with this, the evidence has to be very strong, such as DNA evidence (which covers semen, blood, hair samples, fibers, or personal belongings with the victims…show more content…
Not every crime should be subject to double jeopardy. Robbery, traffic offenses, divorce suits, and minor assault cases should remain protected from double jeopardy. Only the crimes where society is at a serious risk, and new and compelling evidence is brought to light for those serious crimes, should there be a retrial of an acquitted person. In 2006, there were new rules on double jeopardy that were put into force which scored a first conviction. ( Economist) “Pressure for a change in the law came after an official inquiry into the murder in 1993 of Stephen Lawrence, a black London schoolboy, found that the principle of double jeopardy would cause “grave injustice to victims and the community” (Economist). The fear that the new rules would be abused and taken advantage of have been tightly defined (Economist). Only the serious crimes can be reviewed—such as murder, rape, and armed robbery (Economist). “Any new investigations must be sent through the Director of Public Prosecution.
Open Document