From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Summary: consistencies, hobgoblins, etc.
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:13:54 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.204316.15877@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> 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.

	Right.  And when you rob a bank you commit two different crimes.  One
against the state/local laws and one against the federal laws.

>> 	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 just don't get it, do you?  The same act can generate more than one
charge.

>      You are a complete waste of time.

	For those unwilling to learn, apparently.

>> >> 	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

	You aren't reading carefully enough.

	Say the prosecution can't prove murder, so they go with assualt.  The
defendant gets aquitted.  They find the murder weapon.  They *can* charge the
defendant with murder and go with a new trial.

> no command of the English language or logical thought
> processes to speak of.

	You seem to be looking in the mirror.

>> 	Why should we say new evidence that favors the defendant 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.

	But the constition does NOT say "if evidence favors the defendant, it's
ok, but not vice versa".  What the consitution DOES say is that you can't
endlessly charge the same person with the same crime and keep him locked up in
the judicial system.
	Processes that don't violate that edict are indeed constitutional.  And
the courts have ruled that evidence which the judge feels changes the
circumstances of the original trial can result in a new trial.  The defendant
is NOT being tried twice for the same crime (indeed, it is impossible to retry
an aquittal) but is being tried for a new crime with new evidence.  That's why
it must past the muster of a judge.  It's to prevent a de-facto double
jeopardy.

>> 	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.

	There are only a few men writing the amendment.  Getting to a spot on
the supreme court is also a long, drawn-out affair.  (So to speak :)

>> >      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.

	Ahhh, perhaps if you stopped shouting "fool" so often you'd look like
less of one.

>      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.

	Indeed, where did he go?  Cognitive processes seem to be lacking on the
other side of this issue.

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