Arguments Against Double Jeopardy

915 Words4 Pages
Double jeopardy is a defense procedure that excludes an accused or a defendant from being again on similar charges in the same case after a legal conviction or acquaintance. It has its originated from the common law and the accused person can enter the autrefois acquite or the autrefois convict. This means that the defendant had been convicted or acquitted of a similar case and cannot undergo a similar trial basing on the double jeopardy principle. Almost all European countries signed the European convention on human rights and article four of the document protects against double jeopardy. It states that no one is to be subjected to criminal proceedings under the laws of that particular state for which they had been previously acquitted or…show more content…
This has brought confidence in the justice system and fairness to the oppressed in the society.
Reasserting the Legitimacy of the System by Allowing Retrials for New Evidence
The judicial process before the reforms relied on the application of the jeopardy rule.
The legitimacy of the court had been threatened by this rule and it was frustrating when new evidence was discovered and it became impossible to try the defendant again. If the court is unable to revisit a case and new evidence is provided, it means that its lacks legitimacy. The reform, however allows for only one subsequent trial. Opening the case several times would create a conflict between the states and its institutions. [2]The state will appear as if it lacks willingness to believe in institutions it created. In addition, many trials will be an abuse to the defendant and the state will commit many resources in attempts to prosecute the defendant.
The new reforms have assisted in doing away with justice issues emanating from the use of the jeopardy rule. The reforms protect against the, risk of undergoing a wrongful conviction, lead to efficient investigation, protects participants from undergoing stress in
Open Document