Double Jeopardy Clause Research Paper

All clauses are adapted to the needs of the country at the present time. Change is always necessary to explore better and newer options. The double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment hasn’t significantly changed since the constitution was ratified, but rather the way viewed. The Supreme Court's rulings in Palko v. Connecticut,  Benton v. Maryland and Heath v. Alabama show that there has been a noticeable trend towards various interpretations of the same clause over the last hundred years.

The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment 's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. To begin with, the Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791.

The central issue being looked at is the 6th Amendment, which is the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The point of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause is to give the defendant more rights at trial. These rights include, the right to confront their accuser and the witness that are against them. The 6th Amendment also establishes the guidelines for out-of-court

To start with, it can be shown that imposed during the sentencing process are 2 of them effective and ineffective in protecting the rights. For example, the case of R. v. Fernando set a record for the next generation sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. It was thought that Fernando was guilty of wounding his de facto wife. An implication of this case is massive, as it established the principles , which take reduced economic circumstances and a big loss of customer law into account when sentencing indigenous offenders. This, testifying to the of the law, in protecting the own belief of offenders.

Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1999) Procedural History The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court convicted and sentenced the defendant for crimes he committed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA).

The punishment fits the crime. That statement conforms to the ideas of a system know as retributive justice. Retributive justice is rooted in proportionality. This means that a punishment should be to the same degree of ones sin. This system appeals to me personally because it avoids giving people the chance to seak revenge.

The Supreme Court recently began hearing oral arguments in a case, where two men were convicted of bribery by a jury. However, that conviction was overturned by an appeal because the jury had been improperly instructed as to what constitutes a guilty verdict. The attorney for the defense, Lisa Blatt said, “The government should bear the consequences when overlapping charges produce split verdicts of acquittals and invalid convictions.” This quote identifies with one of the fundamental principles of the American legal system, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. While Blatt continues to argue that the vacated conviction is worthless.

The United States justice system is a complicated system. The justice system is the third branch of the government. This branch holds the responsibility to create and up hold laws. The justice system has a precise order of how things fall into place when a crime has been committed. The process to arrest an individual to the sentencing of that individual takes a bountiful amount of steps and procedures.

NAME: PETER KOIRA KIMANI REGISTRAION NUMBER: LAW/M/1030/09/14 INSTITUTION: KABARAK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW COURSE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TAKE AWAY ASSIGNMENT COURSE INSTRUCTOR: DR.CHARLES A. KHAMALA COMMENCEMENT: 23 JUNE 2015; CONCLUSION 14 JULY 2013 Double jeopardy is the fact of being prosecuted or sentenced twice for substantially the same offence. It can also be described as a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. Double Jeopardy is afforded not only by the pleas in the bar of (autrefois acquit, autrefois convict), but also judicial discretion to stay proceedings as abuse as abuse of process.

In 1979, Justice Stewart, Brennan and Marshall insisted that “No principle is more firmly established in our system of criminal justice than the presumption of innocence that is accorded to the defendant in every criminal trial.” Furthermore, the “Blackstone ratio” of 10”:1 that “the law holds that it is better than ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” was upheld in Coffin v U.S. where Justice White quoted a Roman official who wrote that “it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” This shows that the presumption of innocence plays a significant role in criminal law as the outcome of wrongful conviction is regarded as a significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal.

The textbook defines the Double Jeopardy Clause as: “A clause to the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects persons from being tried for the same crime twice”. When this definition is applied to the plot of the movie Double Jeopardy I believe that Libby, the main character, would be protected by this clause. Libby was already found guilty of her husband’s murder even though she was set up. So when she is let out on parole years later and sets out to find him she is protected under this clause. The main idea is what protects her, she has already been found guilty for the murder of her husband so she can commit the murder without being tried for it.

Australia believes that your rights are protected if you’re on the wrong and right side of the law. However, it wasn’t in the Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 case. Dietrich was a criminal who had a past of committing many crimes.