Persuasive Essay On Double Jeopardy

We believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty, a person should

receive punishment. This is the purpose of the justice system. The whole rule of double

jeopardy defies this, not bringing justice to those who deserve it as it forbids for the accused to

be tried again. It will be more beneficial to society as a whole if we abolish double jeopardy, to

correct the mistakes of the justice system and essential for progression.

Double jeopardy is the sole reason why some criminals walk free. The justice court is fallible:

ineffective representation or perjury testimony would ultimately cause a wrongful conviction.

Wrongful convictions are a concern of everybody, the families of the victims or the lawyers

Evidence does take time to surface for

example the Casey Anthony case where she was proven innocent but it was later found that

she had searched up ''efficient ways to kill'' on Google just before her daughter's murder,

evidence that ultimately shocks us and demands for the court to re-evaluate. The abolition of

double jeopardy will finally allow this.

Dangerous criminals should not be allowed the slightest bit of chance of escaping punishment:

evasion of prison by these criminals does not benefit anyone, prison aims to reduce crime by

punishing and acting as a deterrence and also to rehabilitate criminals. If criminals do not serve

their term, they are more likely to commit more crime as having not undergone rehabilitation.

In addition, we should honour the victim's family and allow them to come to closure. Abolition

of double jeopardy would at least increase the chances of closure for the grieving family instead

of just cutting of everything after the verdict. Think of their unimaginable agony they go

through, the murderer of their loved ones allowed to roam the streets. Their persistence in the

search for new evidence should be encouraged, helping the state improve their justice