the double jeopardy law should be repealed

My first point is that people who are guilty because of new found evidence cannot be retried and are let free. According to debatewise.org, "The problem with the "double jeopardy" rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they"ve confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before." It is possible that a guilty person can confess after being found innocent and still be free. This is a threat for everyone since the guilty may break the law again which leads to my second point. The only people we are protecting are protecting with the double jeopardy rule are the guilty. How? First of all, we are letting criminals out in the street who are possible of committing more crimes. If they are let go and cannot be retried because of the rule, they feel as though they can commit more crimes and get away with it. More evidence proving their innocence can be turned away because of the double jeopardy prohibition. Someone could receive the death sentence and then evidence could be revealed too late. This also encourages crime. A person may commit a crime and do a good job of hiding all traces it was them knowing that for the first trial it is highly unlikely there will be enough evidence to punish him/her. He/she will feel safe thinking that even if they do find more evidence proving it was him/her, he/she will be protected by the law. In the movie Double Jeopardy, a woman is framed of murdering her husband and is in prison for six years before finally being let out on parole. Later she finds that her husband is still alive and decides, since she has already served her time, to kill him. My third and final point is that this is unconstitutional. According to doublejeopardyreform.org, "Double jeopardy is an ancient concept, and quite frankly, outdated. According to history, it started before A.D. In 355 B.C. Demosthenes said that the "law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue." It also survived the Dark Ages, Colonial Times, and now, where it is in effect in most countries today. For what reason? Do we still believe in prosecuting witches or that life springs up from recipes? No. A lot of things are different now, so we shouldn't practice old laws. Some are beneficial, some are not. Some just need modified, and like I've said before, Double Jeopardy is one of those." This proves my point because if we keep old laws in our Constitution, our justice system is flawed. We are in a different time than the past and we have to keep changing as our society changes. In the fifth constitution it states, "...[No person] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The double jeopardy amendment goes against the Constitution because we are putting life and limb in danger by letting criminals go.