The Double Jeopardy Rules should be terminated.

If my opponent, or anyone for that matter, does not know what the double jeopardy rule is, I will state it: Double Jeopardy Rule- n. The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted. (http://www.answers.com...) I hope my judges will acknowledge that this is an extremely difficult debate to argue as con, so I hope you judge who had the better argument. To commence the debate, I will begin with my first points: 1.The prosecution must make as strong of a case as possible with the double jeopardy rule enabled. Without the double jeopardy rule, the quality of the instigation would be greatly diminished because the police would not have to do as thorough of a search, simply because they are under no pressure to investigate further to guarantee a strong case and make sure they have their man. With the double jeopardy rule, the prosecution is forced to provide the most crucial argument, while the police are obliged to present the most thorough investigation. Without a double jeopardy rule, the reduced quality cases would increase the risk of convicting the wrong man. To further enhance my defense, we will presume in a hypothetical situation that the authorities have the correct criminal. The increased chance of acquittal allows the accused to go free, at least until more evidence is found to support the prosecutors' position. Otherwise, the guilty are set free while the innocent are prosecuted 2.An individual has inadequate assets to properly find evidence that will clear him, when he is charged for the alleged crime. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to provide a sufficient defense, while the state has an immense amount of resources on hand to provide a case which is almost impossible to defend against without a lawyer. That's why you are innocent until proven guilty. Without the double jeopardy rule, the already unbalanced situation is thrown awry and is even further favored in the states case. Repeated trial cases induce a greater risk of wrongful conviction. The innocent are caught while the guilty offend. 3.Termination of the double jeopardy rule will make the innocent weary. Even after acquittal, they can be charged for a crime they did not commit. After accused, the victim must live knowing that further prosecution can be made and they may never return to daily life as it was before the trial. The state would be allowed to additionally harass an individual until the jury found the defendant guilty. This creates a completely unfair advantage for the state in trial, as they can persecute until the charged is "proven" guilty. 4.In a murder trial, it would be difficult to find a jury unaware of the previous trial, and thus unbiased. The information of the crime must be new and fresh in order to be judged fairly, and the application of the double jeopardy rule ensures a more fair and honest jury. Most people ask, "Well doesn't the double jeopardy rule then allow the guilty to roam free?" Sure, in a very rare and small amount of trials, and personally I feel that is a very small price to pay for the amount of guilty people it keeps in and the amount of innocent people it keeps out. The submission of the double jeopardy rule was obviously given thought by the government, and wouldn't have been implemented without valid reasons for doing so. I therefore, through a simple risk analysis, believe that unless there are more benefits by abolishing the double jeopardy rule, it should continue its role in our government today. http://www.speech-topics-help.com... <-(thanks for the idea) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.answers.com... http://www.magnacartaplus.org... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... http://www.vanwagnerwood.com... Honestly, I originally was pro for the destruction of the rule, after some research, I vote con, and that it should stay the way it is. Sincerely, Your new opponent, Julius Caesar XD.