Japan has double jeopardy. What other countries have it? And do you think it is wrong to have double jeopardy? Being AMerican, double jeopardy is unthinkable. Even in the case of the murderer who gets off on a technicality, double jeopardy goes against the grain for me.
I got to thinking about this with the Lucie Blackman case. The prosecutors get to appeal?!?! WTF? THe prosecutors fucked up, no doubt. But to get to try the guy again?
I got to thinking about this with the Lucie Blackman case. The prosecutors get to appeal?!?! WTF? THe prosecutors fucked up, no doubt. But to get to try the guy again?
|
|
|
|
コメント(8)
It goes against the grain for me, too.
It opens the door to persecution, trying again and again to convict someone when the evidence is insufficient. That would be a form of punishment in itself without proof of guilt. It could hang over a person's life for many many years, even decades.
As long as there are provisions for retrial where there was some form of miscarriage or legal anomaly or fresh evidence, then the prosecution has a fair playing field.
But basically it should be up to the prosecution to get it right and give it their best shot the first time, and they would know that and ensure their case is strong before going to court.
No system is perfect, so every chance to protect the innocent should be considered.
It opens the door to persecution, trying again and again to convict someone when the evidence is insufficient. That would be a form of punishment in itself without proof of guilt. It could hang over a person's life for many many years, even decades.
As long as there are provisions for retrial where there was some form of miscarriage or legal anomaly or fresh evidence, then the prosecution has a fair playing field.
But basically it should be up to the prosecution to get it right and give it their best shot the first time, and they would know that and ensure their case is strong before going to court.
No system is perfect, so every chance to protect the innocent should be considered.
Hmmm...I think double jeopardy is pretty
important. The basis of our legal system
is that in a criminal trial the person
must be found guilty beyond all reasonable
doubts.
It's the job of the prosecution to prove
guilt. I know that you are thinking about
cases where someone is guilty but gets off
on a technicality. Say for example if
evidence was found via an illegal search.
Remove the double jeopardy laws and the
prosecution could just keep resubmitting
the same evidence in the hope that eventually
they will get a sympathetic judge.
On the other hand, there was a case recently
where a protestor in Australia who had his arm
twisted behind his back by a policeman yelled
out "You f___king c__t". The police charged
him under offensive language laws. The judge
threw the case out saying police regularly
use that type of language and in the
circumstances it wasn't offensive (if he
said it to a nun he might have been found
guilty).
If double jeopardy laws didn't exist the
police could just recharge him for the same
offensive language as he was leaving the
court and if it was thrown out again, they
could charge him again.
In Japan, apparently you can be tried for the sme crime three times, local cout, appeals court and the supreme court.
The Blackman murder case is being appealed to the appellate court. No new evidence.
I think it is sad that the guy got off, but he did and he doesn't deserve a second trial.
Japan is a scary country.
The Blackman murder case is being appealed to the appellate court. No new evidence.
I think it is sad that the guy got off, but he did and he doesn't deserve a second trial.
Japan is a scary country.
I think you are only actually being tried once
for the crime. At the end of the trial the
lawyers for either side may seek leave to appeal
to a higher court. But the appeal is not a
retrial it is just seeking to have the decision
set aside on matters of law. For example in
some cases a judge can direct a jury to return a
guilty plea but if the judge mentions a previous
conviction when he is giving directions to the
jury a higher court would probably declare a
mistrial and then it is up to the prosecution
to decide if they want to proceed to a retrial.
A mistrial is different since there is no verdict and the procescution si free to try the suspect again.
In the Blackman case a verdict was provided so it is not a mistrial, but in fact a double jeopardy re-trial at a higher court.
Double jeopardy is still double jeopardy even if the case is elevated to a higher court.
In the Blackman case a verdict was provided so it is not a mistrial, but in fact a double jeopardy re-trial at a higher court.
Double jeopardy is still double jeopardy even if the case is elevated to a higher court.
If there is no "new" evidence the case should not be re opened. Anyway, in the Blackman case the guy got life. So what difference does it make now. She is dead and whether he is convicted for her murder or not he still only has one life to give and he has already lost that. If he were walking around outside free it would be a different situation.
As some said above, trials in Japan are relatively too
sloppy although that is another problem.
What matters most is Japanese prosecutions rely on
confessions. There are some cases that true criminals
or crucial facts come out after final jugde has finished.
In that cases, you can demand "double jeopardy".
That is my understanding.
sloppy although that is another problem.
What matters most is Japanese prosecutions rely on
confessions. There are some cases that true criminals
or crucial facts come out after final jugde has finished.
In that cases, you can demand "double jeopardy".
That is my understanding.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
