Double Jeopardy

Possibility of corruption:"Corruption is common. Someone could corrupt a bunch of people and put them on the jury"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. "They could also threaten the witnesses, and know exactly if they said what they demanded, as the accused watch their trial and watch witnesses testify."Well yeah but double Jeopardy doesnt cause that, that happens just because of the justice system itself not double jeopardy by itself, and this same thing goes for the earlier reference to corruption above. Double Jeopardy is meant to prevent a very particular kind of corruption, that form the government and from big businesses. Back in Old England if the government or a business wanted to sue a person or try to convict a person of a crime, whether it was made up or not, the state and businesses had far more resources at their disposal to try to build a case against the one person with far less at his disposal. Now the double jeopardy rule comes into play when the first time around, the government or business does not get the result they wanted, so they do it AGAIN and AGAIN until they get the result they want over the same crime. This dirty tactic is a cheap way to dry the defendant dry of money and unable to afford a defense for the next trial and get them to plead guilty just by sucking them dry through repetition. Double Jeopardy forbids this cynical and cyclical cycle of the past where powerful entities would pick on average people by constantly suing them and brings justice to those individuals. Errors:"There could have been some kind of technicality in the case they were in. "Technicalities do happen but if a person is guilty then one technicality could be overcome and justice would still prevail. " The judges could have wrongly denied evidence or given a false summation to the jury"Yes but both sides have the right to appeal a ruling to a higher court and have the case done again without violating the double jeopardy rule. "Law has it's flaws, it's never perfect, so anything could happen."I agree with this, however this is referencing all laws in general, not just pinning it all on double jeopardyEvidence:"They could find video cameras showing the deed being done, whatever that may be, or their fingerprints on the knife that killed the person, and they could even admit to being guilty and still be free."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. Freeing a guilty person:If a guilty person (in a rare circumstance) does get away, than three things can happen, 1) They pull some other crime and end up in jail sooner or later, 2) They consider themselves lucky and lie low from now on, meaning that the system did its job in a sense, or 3) Those who screwed up learn what they screwed up and be ready for it next time. Respect / Less confidence in the systemThe Pro argues that if people notice others getting off on a technicality, others may pull the same crime since they think they can get away with it. Lets take the Casey Anthony debacle, After that trial dived into infamy there wasnt a growing trend in child disappearences by parents, all that happened was widespread anger towards both the person who got away and the system, not just the system. When OJ was found not guilty there wasnt a trend in killing ex girlfriends because people now thought they could get away with it either. 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'm not saying that double jeopardy should be completely abolished" Awesome!"but when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against the accused after the trial, then exceptions need to be made."I see what is going on here, the Pro only wants to amend Double Jeopardy laws to say that "No one shall be tried for the same crime twice........ Unless we really, really are sure they're guilty"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"The sixth amendment of the U.S. guarantees the right to a "speedy public trial." While this is a good thing for both sides....... but it is always harder for the prosecution."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. Double Jeopardy exists to prevent an age old trick to get normal civilians or people to end up or plead guilty by bleeding them financially dry through trial after trial to get what they want. The pro even feels that Double Jeopardy should be only amended, not thrown out, to nab those who could escape the system by allowing an exception to the rule if "they know they are guilty". But if its the prosecution that "knows" they are guilty then NOBODY would be exempt from a charge. 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 Double Jeopardy was amended in this way then the prosecution would be less inclined to gather and present all the evidence knowing they could always get a second, third, fourth, or fifth chance to try to get the verdict they want. Lastly the presumption of innocence in trials would be lost if prosecutors could sue away.