Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:00:13 EST
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: timeless in the sense of until the next amendment?

In article <1992Aug19.183917.20462@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.
> 
>      This is your second strike, Brett; that's
> as kind as I can put it, and frankly my restraint
> surprises me.  You're talking about separate
> murders, and hence separate crimes.  Where
> does double jeopardy come in?  Besides, no one
> has argued against multiple court systems: only
> double jeopardy.

	Starcap'n, this is why you'll never make it out of the minor leagues.

	Why are two different state courts any different than two different
court systems?

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

>> 	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.

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

	Similarly, why is it ok to prosecute for two separate murders, but not
for two crimes that result from one murder?

>> >      Where, exactly, did the fifth amendment make this distinction
>> > between jurisdictions?
>> 
>> 	Interpretations.
> 
>      Very good, Brett, it appears you might
> be making progress.  

	*Yawn*.  Being smarmy wins you no points.

> It would seem you do
> understand that the reason the King case
> isn't double jeopardy is because a handful
> of men in positions of power once said so,
> not because of anything actually written in
> the Constitution.

	Just as the income tax results from the decision of a few men, and not
because the framers said so.  In fact they said quite the opposite.

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

>      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".)

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