How many of you think that the double jeopardy law needs to be either amended or changed altogether?

Question

Mel Ignatow, a Louisville resident, was found not guilty of murdering his fiance' Brenda Shaffer by a jury several years ago here in Kentucky. Several years later, Brenda's jewelry and some film that Ignatow used to film her killing was found in a house that Ignatow had sole. Even though the evidence was there in the pictures, Mel Ignatow was protected un der the double jeopardy law, which states that u can't try a person twice for the same crime. After a case review, the U,.S, attorney's office found that Ignatow lied under oath and he was found guilty for that. I think this law needs to be changed at the national level. What do you guys think?

Answer 1

I disagree. Any way we set things up, there will always be a glaring example of an innocent person who is convicted, or a guilty person who is found innocent. One example does not make the case to change the system.

There is huge value in the double jeopardy rule. It prevents prosecutors from, in effect, becoming judges themselves. A District Attorney who thinks someone should be found guilty can harrass them forever, even if juries keep finding them innocent.

Answer 2

No.  We should not amend the constitution to permit multiple prosecutions of the same person for the same offense.  That would be profoundly unjust.  Michael D. does not understand the law; you do, but your conclusion is wrong.

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:  "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

This protection is extremely important.  Imagine if you are arrested for a crime you did not commit.  After trial, you are (properly) acquitted.  Good.

No imagine two different possibilities after your acquittal:  (1) the prosecutor is a dishonest, evil person who just wants to hurt you and (2) the prosecutor, though mistaken, firmly believes that the evidence proves your guilt, even though the jury acquitted you.  

In either case, such a prosecutor, without the protection of the Constitution could prosecute you again (and again and again and again).

You are correct that sometimes this rule will prevent justice from being done.  Sometimes prosecutors will go to trial using whatever evidence then exists and it will be insufficient.  Then, sometimes, later evidence will surface that proves guilt conclusively.

We take that risk to live in society where the state is prevented by the Constitution from re-trying someone who has been acquitted.  That rule is an important check on the power of the government.

(Note, though,.in the U.S., there is a concept of "separate sovereigns"  That means that the Federal Government is a separate sovereign from each state government.  What that means, in this context, is that if the State of NY prosecutes a defendant for a crime and he is acquitted, the Federal Government can still prosecute him  if what he did is a federal offense without raising any double jeopardy constitutional concerns).

Answer 3

Well thats not true. If new evidence is found then a judge can grant a second trial. the reason that woudl apply is if he was found giulty. You cant be found giulty twice for th esame crime.

Answer 4

That case was  not just "a few years ago"

that was like 1988 or so....

I think if there is irrefutable evidence then the case should be able to be revisited.

The b*****d is dead now anyway, good riddance to bad rubbish.....

Answer 5

There is always going to be the exception that makes you want to revisit the issue.   Out system is flawed, granted.   However a more flawed system would be if we could continually prosecute and re prosecute people for the same crimes.

As noted you will have DA who will act as judge and continually bring forth a case until they achieve a desired result.

Allowing double jeopardy would allow the judicial process to be abused.  

Once we loose the impartiality in the judicial process we lose some of our most fundamental rights.