From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: misc.legal
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:43:16 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> >> 	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
> >> tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
> >> separate court systems.
> > 
> > You're talking about separate murders, and hence
> > separate crimes.  Where does double jeopardy come in?
> 
> 	Why are two different state courts any different than two different
> court systems?

     WHAT?!?  Are you just a blathering idiot?
I didn't say anything about two different state
courts: I said two different murders.

> 	The consitution never says anything like "you can't charge a person
> with more than one crime for the same act".

     That is not the debate. The debate
is whether you can try someone more than once
for the same act.  There were multiple charges
at the original King trial, fool.  No one cares
about multiple charges.

     You are a complete waste of time.

> >> 	New evidence?  What if it is in the defendant's favor?  And of course
> >> we can't have double standards.  So new evidence can mean a new trial.
> > 
> >      Yes, Brett, new evidence can mean a new
> > trial for the defendant, while once the
> > defendant is acquitted it cannot mean a new
> > trial for the prosecution.  That's the way the
> > founders saw fit to do it.  I gather you don't
> > like that arrangement, although I don't quite
> > see how that has any relevance to the issue.
> 
> 	The arrangement is fine.  If you apply it consistently, then another
> trial for new evidence (which results in new charges) is not double jeopardy.

     WHAT?!?  You are a complete idiot.  You say
the arrangement is fine, and then turn right around
and say it isn't in the next sentence.  You have
no command of the English language or logical thought
processes to speak of.

> 	Why should we say new evidence that favors the defendent is ok, but
> that which damns them is not?

     Because that's what the Constitution says,
fool.  If after having someone read it for you
and explain to you what it means you don't like
what it says, then propose an amendment.

> 	So why is it ok?  Amendment you say?  Still just a few men deciding
> it's ok.

     No, fool, an amendment is not just a few
men deciding it's ok.  Ratifying an amendment
is a long drawn out process involving many.  And
once approved, it *is* the Constitution.

> >      I'm not sure, however, that you realize
> > that powerful men and their convenient
> > "interpretations" come and go, but that what
> > the Constitution actually says is timeless.
> 
> 	Priceless, cap'n.  I'll let you figure out why that is such a whopper. 
> (If you need a hint, think of a word that start with "a".)

     Again, fool, an amendment *is* the Constitution,
not just an interpretation thereof.

     Good grief, where did Mr. Greenfield go?  Despite
our differences, at least he can read something and
make a response that has something to do with what
was written.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal