Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:43:07 EST
 <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> <PA146008.249.714247653@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <PA146008.249.714247653@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>In article <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug18.015503.3560@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>> 
>>>>	Double jeopardy is being tried in the same court for the same crime
>>>>(with the same evidence) twice.
>>>>
>>>      The Constitution does not make this distinction.  It says simply
>>> that noone will be twice put in jeapardy of life and limb for the same
>>> offense.   Just because somebody comes up with new evidence after an
>>> acquital does not mean you have to have another trial.  Nor can you just
>>> switch jurisdictions and try again.
>>
>>	You're not "switching jurisdictions".  There are two separate court
>>systems, and two separate law systems.
>>
>>	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.
> 
>      If two different murders are commited in two different states, then
> you are tried for the first murder in the state it was commited in,
> then the second murder in the state it was commited in.  You are not tried
> for *both* murders in *both* states.

	Right.  And if you rob a bank, and thus break state and federal laws,
then you are tried in two *different* court systems.

>>	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, in the *defendent's* favor.  Your fifth amendment rights are yours
> to hold or to waive as you see fit.  If someone produces new evidence you
> may waive your right and get a new trial.  What you're suggesting is
> that the *government* get to decide to have a new trial at the expense
> of the *defendent's* rights.

	They have to convince a judge first.

	Say in a murder trial they finally find the gun with the suspects
prints all over it.  Should they say "gosh, the poor soul has already had one
bad experience in the court, let's let them stay on the streets"?

	The fact that they have to convince a judge that new evidence justifies
a new trial provides a built-in check against harassment.

	Accordingly, if a gun was found that exonerated a suspect, a new trial
should definitely be held.  So why have a double standard?

>>>>	Federal courts and state courts are not the same court system.  A
>>>>suspect can be tried in both courts for the same act (e.g. bank robbery) and it
>>>>doesn't violate the double jeopardy standard.
>>> 
>>>      Bank Robbery is a state crime, and the federal government does not have
>>> the jurisdiction to try those cases.
>>
>>	Rob a federal bank if you don't think so.  The Feds made it a federal
>>crime back in the 70s.
> 
>      The mess the feds have made of banking has produced a spider-web of
> contradictions.  Depending on which particular nonsense you are referring
> to they may very well have been out of line.  But we've been fighting
> over the feds authority in banking for two hundred years now.

	I believe the laws they made were similar to "interfering with the
federal reserve banking system" or some such.

>>>>	Anyone not understanding that should do a little reading before
>>>>proceeding further.
>>> 
>>>      Where, exactly, did the fifth amendment make this distinction between
>>> jurisdictions?
>>
>>	Interpretations.
> 
>      The Constitution has an amendment process.  Simply interpreteting the
> document to make it say what you want to say defeats the whole purpose
> of writing your government down.

	Not at all.  The framers intended for the document to be interpreted. 
Otherwise it would have been a lot longer and contained much legalese.

>      It spells it out clearly that no person will be "twice put in jeapardy
> of life and limb," for the same offense.  It's black and white and crystal
> clear.  If you want it changed, propose an amendment.  If you just
> want to interpret it into something else than don't even bother with
> justifying it with the Constitution, because you've just made that
> document meaningless.

	I don't think so.  For the reasons I've given.  If you are going to
have a fair and impartial legal system, you have to make the process
consistent.  You can't have a system that promotes the rights of the accused
over the rights of the others.

	The accused should have the same rights as anyone else.  No more, no
less.

	Because two different laws are broken, the defendent is not being put
in jeopardy "twice for the same offense".

	The constitution does not mention "twice for the same actions".

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!