Double Jeopardy

Jury Bribery as a result of Double JeopardyIt is possible for people on trial to bribe jurors and they do not need to bribe the entire jury to get free, but jury tampering when found can be easily fixed because if it is discovered that a jury has been compromised, the court can simply get another one. That was exactly the case when Al Capone was found to have bribed an entire jury while on trial for tax evasion. To fix the problem the Court simply got a new jury, Double Jeopardy had nothing to do with it, and there is a solution to jury tampering that does not involve putting a dangerous loophole into the legal system. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Double Jeopardy causes people to threaten witnessesCon retracted this statement and remarked only by saying that it contributes to the already minuscule chance that a guilty man can get away. .. .. Double Jeopardy prevents a very prominent type of corruptionCon concedes this and then remarks by saying that it causes another, however the number of people who get off unscathed due to Double Jeopardy immunity compared to the thousands of people who used to suffer from constant lawsuits is very slanted towards the latter. Double Jeopardy eliminated a great evil and now slightly contributes to a smaller one, and the Pro thinks thats not enough. All laws are slightly flawed, not just Double Jeopardy Conceded by the Con Damning evidence found after person is already found guilty. "a random pedestrian could have accidentally caught it on tape and didn't know they had it until after the case. "1) That almost never happens2) We cant amend laws to include every possible scenario, otherwise they become so compromised that they are now meaningless. If damning evidence is found after someone is already pronounced innocent then thats just bad luck, not the fault of Double Jeopardy. Shakes the confidence in the Justice system when one gets offI did screw up on this one when responding to the Pro, my bad. But Double Jeopardy is not solely to blame for this happening, that is the fault of all codes of laws not being 100% effective. Admitting evidence back into a trial after the trial is decided" I am trying to say if evidence or something were to come up following their trial, then double jeopardy should be dismissed. But only, and I repeat, only when there is savant evidence. "They do that already though, mostly through DNA evidence and that is used to exonerate people serving long sentences for crimes they did not commit, not the other way around. If evidence could be admitted after a trial has concluded it would only take one very annoyed cop, lawyer, juror, neighbor, or relative to plant evidence or do something to try to frame a person already pronounced not guilty. .. Right to a speedy trial vs Double Jeopardy" I was trying to further point out how easy it is for a criminal to get off. "First of all, you can only get a speedy trial if you have a really good reason to get one, they dont just hand them out to everyone who asks. Second, these laws and rights arent puzzle pieces that fit together perfectly, there will be some cases where they do collide with one another and cause problems, but those kind of things are small, rare, and unavoidable. The one who gets away would stay away from crime"Once they get off the first time then they'll only get better and better at it, increasing the crime rate. (Option #4)"Its not that easy Con, if someone is put on trial, suspiciously declared not guilty, and then started committing actions similar to the original crime, then they could be investigated and nabbed for the same TYPE of crime. .. .Threat of always being sued"If they did not commit the crime then they have no reason not to sleep easy. If they did then they deserve it. "Its not about if they committed the crime or not though its about the hassle of having to hire a new defense team every time the prosecution gets 1 extra piece of evidence to use against them for a charge that might have been filed decades ago. Presumption of innocence would be lost" only specific exceptions would be made when there are overwhelming amounts of evidence found. "How often do court cases occur where after a person was found not guilty a HUGE cache of evidence was found that would have otherwise sealed their fate? The answer is that such a thing rarely happens, and when it does it is rarely a landmark or popular case, Casey Anthony wouldnt even qualify for this since "Overwhelming" could mean that only something that 100% proves a person is guilty could only be admitted. Conclusions:1. My opponent had a bit of spelling mistakes such as "arguemnts," "mroe," and "disappearences. "Really? Youre actually going to argue that you should get spelling because I misspelled 3 words out of 1083 total? Thats like a 0.28% error rate. .. .If you honestly think I should lose spelling for that then fine, but then I want to ask for conduct because pointing out spelling mistakes is the DDO equivalent of a nut shot. .. .2. My opponent has still left some of my arguments unrefuted. Which ones? I responded to all of them the only one i didnt bother addressing was your history reference from 355 BC since that wasnt even related to the debate. 3. My opponent has (currently) no sources, and not including my definition websites, I have seven. Sorry that I like to focus more on my arguments then finding sources to give definitions that people on DDO are smart enough to know. .. .Ok all in all, even the Con thinks that Double Jeopardy should NOT be abolished after saying in the first round that "I will be debating why double jeopardy is bad". This whole debate is now over whether or not a good and just law like Double Jeopardy should be amended just because it is not perfect and not 100% effective. The Con has openly admitted that Double Jeopardy does not single handedly cause many of the problems seen in the justice system, that Double Jeopardy does prevent against a historical type of corruption, and that it should NOT be abolished. ..