CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
5
Yes No
Debate Score:16
Arguments:13
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (4)

Debate Creator

Morgie717(76) pic



Is The Double Jeapordy Law a reasonable Law?

Yes

Side Score: 11
VS.

No

Side Score: 5
1 point

Hard cases make bad law is an adage or legal maxim. Its meaning is that a particularly unpleasant case is a poor basis for a general law which would cover a wider range of less extreme cases.

Supporting Evidence: bad law (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: yes

Because 100% of the burden of proof is on the government. The defense doesn't to prove anything.

Side: yes
1 point

Double Jeopardy prevents the medieval practice of trying the same crime of the same person over and over until a guilty verdict is reached.

Side: yes
Morgie717(76) Disputed
1 point

true... but what if new evidence comes out that proves they did it? then they cant have a retrial at all with the double jeopardy law... My opinion is that they don't just continuously retry the case with the same evidence, but that if new evidence is found that shows the person that was tried once for a crime, can be tried twice if more evidence is found that proves they did it.

Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Actually there are provisions which allow retrial if substantial evidence is found which would indicate a different verdict, but the evidence has to be very strong usually DNA evidence of some sort.

Side: yes
1 point

Double Jeopardy is designed to protect the innocent and proceed to trial only if you honestly believe it's the best move. They do not want people using trial to their advantage to keep trying someone until they find the right combination of bias to convict someone.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." - William Blackstone.

This quote is upheld in criminal law, called Blackstone's Ratio/Formulation.

Side: yes

People should not have to be tried for something that was already decided in court.

Side: Yes
1 point

Okay, so after recent news of Casey Anthony's verdict of not guilty, I think most of us have come to question the double jeopardy law. Even though i would like to be a Prosecutor, i 100% disagree with this law. What if new evidence came out about Casey Anthony, or OJ Simpson that proved they did it? They still wouldn't go to jail because a jury already ruled them as not guilty. We are lucky because OJ is in jail now. But what if Casey Anthony kills again? She wants more kids, what if she cant handle having another child? One more thing, Casey Anthony is becoming famous for killing her child. She has been asked to make an appearance on many shows such as Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew. She has also been offered $1.5 million for a book deal. What if she decides to create a little drama and tell everybody she actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony (hypothetically), she still cannot be sent to jail. A confession after trial will still not earn her a place in jail. A CONFESSION!!! So this is why i disagree with the Double Jeopardy Law.

Side: No
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

Casey's case shouldn't of even went to trail.

They lacked so much needed evidence to prove much of anything, there wasn't even a cause of death.

Double jeopardy is suppose to act as incentive to stop such cases from going to trail.

Simply put, trail is expensive, time consuming, and so forth and no one should have to go though it multiple times for the same offense.

Side: yes
Morgie717(76) Disputed
2 points

By the way its trial not trail... and no the double jeopardy law is used because a person cannot be tried for the same charges twice as you pointed out. But my point is that lets just say that Casey Anthony just came out and said she did it. A confession. I'm not saying she did it or didn't do it its just a hypothetical. I'm also saying if new evidence came out that PROVED she did it, she would still not go to jail.

Side: No
1 point

I hate the Double Jeopardy Law. Lets just say a guy is tried for murder and is found innocent. We don't know if he really did it and got away with it or he was really innocent. Now a guy pisses him of or he just starts fantasizing about killing someone. Next thing we know there is a cold-blooded serial killer on the loose and there is nothing anyone can do to touch him. He can gun down a whole school and get away with it because no one can touch him. Some people may say that this law was put in place so that you can't try the same person until you find a convincing enough case to convict so I propose an amendment to the law. You can only try a person once for each crime they commit.

Side: No