O.J. Simpson and Double Jeopardy.
- Thread starter Andrew P.C.
- Start date
- Status
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
I think double-jeopardy laws are good. I believe a case can be retried if there is sufficient new evidence. What's the new evidence?
Dena, you are right. That's what "jeopardy" is all about. If you undergo a trial for a crime, you are in "jeopardy" of being convicted and suffering state-inflicted punishment. The prohibition against double jeopardy means that you cannot face criminal prosecution for the same crime twice.
There are a lot of nuances, though. For instance, you could be tried for some crime (like assault) in state court and be acquitted, and then later be charged in Federal Court for a different crime (perhaps a federal gun violation). There are different rules that apply, but the general rule is that you can't be criminally charged for the same specific acts more than once.
No.
Basically, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. "Double jeopardy" is found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy (double jeopardy) of life or limb."
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
I dunno, maybe that he did it
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I dunno, maybe that he did it
Don't you mean "if" he did it?
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, you're wrong. Hollywood isn't the best source for such things.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Not only are not allowed to be double tried but you are not allowed to be tried for other offenses of the same category. If you are acquitted of first degree murder, you cannot be tried for second degree murder or manslaughter or battery.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Now that he's under arrest in Nevada on various charges (the kidnapping charge alone could get him 10-years-to-life), the "tone" I'm getting from this whole affair is along the lines of "we're gonna do it right this time, he's not gonna escape justice again." I think the authorities are making sure that they really have their factual ducks all in a row when they go to the District Attorney.
I'm just glad that those 12 nimrods from the 1994 jury, who let themselves become star-struck with all the celebrity witnesses to Simpson's character and let him off, won't be around for this one.
He's been the teflon criminal - charges for various things in the past have not been made to stick. Let's hope that's not the case this time.
I'm just glad that those 12 nimrods from the 1994 jury, who let themselves become star-struck with all the celebrity witnesses to Simpson's character and let him off, won't be around for this one.
He's been the teflon criminal - charges for various things in the past have not been made to stick. Let's hope that's not the case this time.
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
Too bad he will sit fat and happy in a three star hotel, excuse me I mean state or federal pen, instead of facing lethal injection, jiffy pop in his lap or the gallows, California even technically still has gas chambers.
He deserves one of the above.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Please tell me if/when he goes to trial it won't be televised again! Personally, I'm about as interested in seeing the trial as I am about reading his book.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
What would happen in that case and how is it not double Jeopardy? Could one possibly be convicted of the same crime twice?
CT
wait a minute. I see a couple people have already said I was correct.
So...what gives? and what is the reference to Hollywood?
wait a minute. I see a couple people have already said I was correct.
Dena, I think the problem is that your question could be interpreted to mean that the guy got out of prison and then committed the crime. If that is true, he could be tried and convicted for the crime that he committed (because it was not the crime that he was sent to prison for).
But, as many have pointed out, you cannot be tried (let alone convicted) for the same crime more than once. Different crimes (from different acts), yes, but not the same crime. You cannot even be tried for a different crime from the same acts more than once.
For example, if you point a gun at someone and steal their money, you could be charged with both robbery and assault. But, if for some reason the prosecutor charged you only with robbery and not assault, and then the jury found you not guilty, the prosecutor is prohibited from turning around and charging you with assault. That is basic double jeopardy.
Actually, Scot is correct. I see that you asked about being convicted for a crime that hadn't occurred yet. If it hadn't occurred yet, then you were wrongly convicted. But that doesn't give you a blank check to go ahead and commit it later. You certainly could be tried and convicted for that.
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
So, your point with not trusting Hollywood is that the movie Double Jeopardy with Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd was wrong. In that movie, she was convicted of killing her husband. She didn't do it, as he wasn't dead. He faked his murder so he could begin a new life. When she got out on probation and found out, she went after him. Tommy Lee Jones, who was her parole officer, tells her she can't be convicted twice for killing her husband.
The point being that she was convicted for an act that hadn't occurred. But that did not allow her to 10 years later go out and commit that act.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Let us say that the penalty for murder in a hypothetical situation is 20 years. A person is convicted of murder (that did not happen) and spend the next 20 years in jail. They are released and then find the person and actually kill them. If the two acts are different then the person should get 20 more years. If they are not different then they would/should not. What say ye?
CT
Two separate issues. The 20 years for wrongful imprisonment can't be returned. At best, a money award of damages can be adjudicated against the state for the miscarriage of justice.
The second scenario is murder. Under your terms, 20 more years, although I think the death penalty is appropriate.
- Status
