![]() Supreme Court has established that the right against double jeopardy is not limited to capital crimes or Corporal Punishment, but that it extends to all felonies, misdemeanors, and juvenile-delinquency adjudications, regardless of the applicable punishments. The Fifth Amendment suggests that the protection against double jeopardy extends only to proceedings that threaten "life or limb." Nevertheless, the U.S. If a particular proceeding does not place an individual in jeopardy, then subsequent proceedings against the same individual for the same conduct are not prohibited. Only certain types of legal proceedings invoke double jeopardy protection. Although the Senate later amended the language to address this concern, the final version ratified by the states left other questions for judicial interpretation.ĭouble jeopardy litigation revolves around four central questions: (1) In what type of legal proceeding does double jeopardy protection apply? (2) When does jeopardy begin, or, in legal parlance, attach? (3) When does jeopardy terminate? (4) What constitutes successive prosecutions or punishments for the same offense? Although courts have answered the second and third questions with some clarity, they continued to struggle over the first and last. Several House members objected to this wording, arguing that it could be misconstrued to prevent defendants from seeking a second trial on appeal following conviction. It provided, "No person shall be subject … to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offense" (emphasis added) ( United States v. Yet some perceived James Madison's original draft of the Double Jeopardy Clause as being too broad. The American colonists, who were intimately familiar with Coke, Blackstone, and the machinations of the Crown, expanded the protection against double jeopardy, making it applicable to all crimes. It did not apply to cases that had been dismissed prior to final judgment, and it was not immune from flagrant abuse by the Crown. It applied only to defendants who were accused of capital felonies, and only after conviction or acquittal. Nonetheless, the English double jeopardy doctrine was extremely narrow. 2d 232 ) and was embraced by eminent jurists Henry de Bracton (1250), Sir Edward Coke (1628), Sir Matthew Hale (1736), and Sir William Blackstone (1769). In England, the protection against double jeopardy was considered "a universal Maxim of the common law" ( United States v. 400–1066), notwithstanding the deterioration of other Greco-Roman legal traditions, through Canon Law and the teachings of early Christian writers. ![]() The principle also survived the Dark Ages ( a.d. In 355 b.c., Athenian statesman Demosthenes said, "he law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue." The Romans codified this principle in the Digest of Justinian I in a.d. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.įive policy considerations underpin the double jeopardy doctrine: (1) preventing the government from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons (2) protecting individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions (3) preserving the finality and integrity of criminal proceedings, which would be compromised were the state allowed to arbitrarily ignore unsatisfactory outcomes (4) restricting prosecutorial discretion over the charging process and (5) eliminating judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments that the legislature has not authorized.ĭouble jeopardy is one of the oldest legal concepts in Western civilization. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. ![]() The evil sought to be avoided by prohibiting double jeopardy is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment. A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |