Double Jeopardy

[ShyGuyInChicago]

In rare cases should an acquitted person be eligible to be tried again. I heard of a criminal case where a man was accused of murder and acquitted and then photos of him committing the murder were later found.

I don't see any real reason why not if the evidence is convincing.

[Amnesiac]

It may not be a perfect amendment, but it's the Constitution. It's the prosecution's job to find those pictures in time, and it's unfortunate they didn't.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

It may not be a perfect amendment, but it's the Constitution. It's the prosecution's job to find those pictures in time, and it's unfortunate they didn't.

DO you think the amendment should be changed so that exceptions can be made in extraordinary circumstances? I think it should.

[Amnesiac]

DO you think the amendment should be changed so that exceptions can be made in extraordinary circumstances? I think it should.

For extremely rare circumstances... possibly. I don't think such a change will ever happen, though — getting amendments passed is not an easy task, especially in a political climate like this.

[nick]

It could open up a whole can of worms, especially when some new forensic technique comes along. Take DNA fingerprinting as an example, imagine how much work would be involved to go back through old cases which were tried before the technique was discovered or accepted.

It seems hard to accept that someone can get away with something as serious as murder and be free potentially to commit the crime again, but that's the system and its important that once acquited the defendant is able to get on with their life without having the police persue some kind of vendetta against them.

The onus is on the prosecution to present a compelling case. If the case isnt strong enough in the first place its a waste of public money to bring it to trial.

[Sith Lord 13]

I feel the prosecution deserves the same rights as the accused and that includes the right to appeal upon the finding of new evidence.