Double jeopardy protects the acquitted from the threat of constant harassment by the state  We’re not just protecting ‘evil people’. The double jeopardy rule protects everyone from the danger of constant harassment from the state. The opposition would rather see a guilty man occasionally go free than see the resources of the state trained on individuals again and again and again, ‘until the state secured (the) popular result’ 1. The double jeopardy rule provides closure for both defendants and the prosecution; if the prosecution regret their case in the future, the fault lies not with the double jeopardy rule itself, but their decision to go to trial based on insufficient evidence. Citizens should not be forced to go through the stress of multiple trials due to the incompetence of the state. ‘If a person accused of a serious crime is acquitted, they are entitled to have some certainty in their future’2. That certainty can only be guaranteed if the prosecution is granted one attempt at a conviction, and one only.  1. The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:  2. Bosscher, M. (2006, November 10). Danger in abolishing double jeopardy rule. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Online Opinion: