Double Jeopardy Argumentative Essay

On August 28th 1955, a fourteen-year-old black boy was brutally murdered by two white men because he allegedly flirted with a white woman. The accused were acquitted, and walked away free from a second trail due to a legal practice preventing someone to be recharged with a crime that has already been pressed against them- double jeopardy. Double jeopardy should be subject to revocation if a subject in question for a crime admits they are guilty or information providing evidence against an indicted person should arise. Complete double jeopardy gives guilty people freedom to confess, without repercussions, to the world. Their freedom from consequence is wrong because serious crimes should be payed for, their liberty puts others at risk, and victims and their families should be able to see their aggressor put behind bars for mental health reasons.

These are taken on a case by case basis by a jury, but the punishments for specific crimes are usually decided by our legal system and are equal to the offense, such as a teenage shoplifter will not be given the death penalty, but may be fined or sentenced to community service. As a society we have determined appropriate consolations for crimes, and offenders need to be given consequence enough to “right the wrong” done. This is part of the social contract between citizens and government, that in exchange for a little bit of freedom, they will be kept safe. In the case of Emmett Till, two murderers, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, were freed due to reasonable doubt in the jury according to the legal records, but the jurors and community knew that the two men would be found innocent no matter how much evidence was brought against them. About a year later, however, Look magazine published an interview of the accused recounting what happened the night of Emmett’s death. In this article the murder was confessed to, and almost revelled in by the