Double Jeopardy

Rebuttals:"Juries are picked at random and then decided by both sides and the judge, for an entire jury to be bribed they would all have to be paid off by the one on trial and everyone would have to accept the bribe for it to work. "No, sometimes it only takes one juror, three at the most, to acquit someone. Acquittal: The deliverance and release of a person appearing before a court on a charge of crime, as by a finding of not guilty. "Well yeah but double Jeopardy doesnt cause that (threatening witnesses)"No, it doesn't but it's a contributing factor as to getting a convict off "scot-free," persay. "Double Jeopardy is meant to prevent a very particular kind of corruption"Yes, and and in some cases it does prevent the kind of corruption my opponent is talking about, but sometimes it creates even more, as I have said earlier. "I agree with this (that laws have flaws) , however this is referencing all laws in general, not just pinning it all on double jeopardy"I am not trying to pin everything on double jeopardy. I was merely making a general statement of how virtually anything could happen in the law, not just double jeopardy. "If you have video of a person doing the crime and he gets off free then that is probably just sh*tty work by the lawyers, thats not the fault of double jeopardy. "Not if it had been found after the case. I'm not talking about like a store or street camera, as they would have easily found those, but a random pedestrian could have accidentally caught it on tape and didn't know they had it until after the case. "Sometimes the justice system does screw the pooch, but when people see someone get away they dont try and become that person because they think they will get away with it, they only have some mroe disrespect for the system not working at 100% efficiency. "I was not saying that after the Casey Anthony case people started killing their daughters. I was not saying that they do EXACTLY what the criminals off free had done, but they it is more likely that they are more careless when it comes to the law. Nowhere in my argument did I even say that they disobeyed the law, much less kill their daughters. My words: But when convicts get off on a noticeable technicality, evading the punishments, it definitely shakes our confidence of the law, and puts more people to the impression that they can get away with their crimes. "This though is impractical because 1) who gets to decide if someone is really really guilty? the prosecution? 2) after all the earlier arguemnts the Pro still wants to keep this in place, 3) The only argument for amending this law is to make it a fraction of 1% more efficient"I think my opponent has misunderstood me here. 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. "Right to a speedy trial comes from another classic tale of English judiciary injustice where the government would imprison criminals for years before putting them on trial to collect as much evidence against them as possible, which fringes on the human rights of the person in prison. "I'm not saying the sixth amendment is bad, as I think it is quite good, but rather it simply complicates double jeopardy. I was trying to further point out how easy it is for a criminal to get off. "If a guilty person (in a rare circumstance) does get away, than three things can happen. .. "My opponent gives some good points here, and in some cases is more than likely to happen. BUT if a convict weasels out punishment once, who's to say they won't do it again? Once they get off the first time then they'll only get better and better at it, increasing the crime rate. (Option #4)"People would never be able to sleep easy again if they could be charged for the same crime at anytime at the will of the state or the prosecution. "If they did not commit the crime then they have no reason not to sleep easy. If they did then they deserve it. "Lastly the presumption of innocence in trials would be lost if prosecutors could sue away. "It would not be, because as I said before, only specific exceptions would be made when there are overwhelming amounts of evidence found. Conclusions: (Numbers do not indicate the importance)1. My opponent had a bit of spelling mistakes such as "arguemnts," "mroe," and "disappearences. "2. My opponent has still left some of my arguments unrefuted.3. My opponent has (currently) no sources, and not including my definition websites, I have seven. Sources:. http://mpdtrainer.wordpress.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk...Lastly,