From: yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [misc.legal et al] Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:43:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

[my post about how the civil rights actions surrounding the Rodney King
 beatings deleted.]
 
mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes: 
>According to my local newpapers, TV, and Radio reports they are not
>being tried for the same offense.  

I agree that the US Constitution has been misinterpreted so that this
prosecution is allowed.

>The statement "same incident" is not the same as the same offense.  

While the courts have held to this piece of legal gymnastics, I
believe they are wrong.  What is the purpose of the concept of "double
jeopardy"?  It is to prevent the government from targeting its
citizens.  A tyrannical government can decide that it does not like a
particular person (or group of people).  It can then prosecute this
person or group until it gets the verdict it wants (i.e. guilty).  To
prevent this abuse, the Constitution restricts the government to a
single try.

Leaving aside the legal rationalizations why this prosecution is
permittable, why are they prosecuting these officers?  The answer is
that the government wants them to pay for beating up Rodney King. The
jury in CA failed to produce a verdict that was satisfactory to the
government.  The "crime" of civil rights violations was invented to
permit this.  Thus, I claim that "double jeopardy" has in fact
occurred.  The legal system may disagree.  They are wrong.

By an extension of the argument used to allow the civil rights
actions, the government could have simply taken the multiple charges
(i.e. assault, attempted murder or whatever) and prosecuted them one
at a time.  Sooner or later, the government will be able to get the
verdict it wants.  We require the government to prosecute all charges
at the same time for a reason.

>There are no state laws referring
>to depriving someone of their civil rights, so they were not tried for 
>this offense in a california court.  

True.  They were charged with the crimes that they committed.  "Civil
rights violation" laws were invented to allow the government to get
around the Constitution.  Yes, these officers should be punished.
Yes, the jury was wrong. I do not, however, believe that they should
be prosecuted again.  The ends never justify the means.

>The reason for allowing this constitutionality is to protect people
>from community supported discrimination.  *IF* the policemen did
>violate the law in the beating of Rodney King, and *IF* the Simi
>Valley jury turned their back on the crime as an act of racial
>persecution, then this second trial is society's way of dealing with
>local rot. 

No, it is allowing the government to prosecute someone repeatedly
until it gets the verdict it wants.  This time, it is these officers.
Next time, it may be me.

> On the other hand, the federal jury may vindicate LA, Simi 
>Valley, and the LAPD.

Nevertheless, double jeopardy has been incurred.


-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc