Scotland to abolish Double Jeopardy rules

[Modbert]

BBC News - Double jeopardy 'to be abolished'

The proposals to end the double jeopardy rule were disclosed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in an exclusive interview with BBC Scotland.
Sinclair was cleared in 2007 of killing Helen Scott and Christine Eadie.
Mr MacAskill said the Crown would have the government's "full support" if it wished to re-prosecute Sinclair.

Sinclair's trial for killing Ms Scott and Ms Eadie, in what became known as the World's End murders, controversially collapsed after a High Court judge ruled he had no case to answer - although police and relatives of Ms Scott and Ms Eadie remain convinced of his guilt.

But signalling his intention to end the 800-year-old rule, Mr MacAskill said if fresh evidence against Sinclair was found in the World's End case, the hands of prosecutors should not be tied.

Should Scotland be doing this?

If you agree, should the U.S.? And if so, why?

Thoughts?

 

[justinacolmena]

The judges of SCOTUS, who are so arrogant that they call themselves "justices," elevating themselves above the very law and Constitution they were called to judge, are already doing so.

Supreme Court’s double-jeopardy case holds Mueller probe implications; Kavanaugh vote key | Fox News

Kavanaugh and other "conservatives" on the court are pushing to relax or end long-standing prohibitions against trying a defendant twice for the same crime in different districts, which is already invalid because the "district shall have been previously ascertained by law;" thus the mere possibility of prosecuting the same crime in more than one district ought to invalidate the entire prosecution.

At the same time, it is Mueller and other "liberals" in law enforcement who most aggressively abuse the "conservative" court rulings to ride roughshod over civil rights.

The privileged class flouts the Constitution left and right and plays both sides against the middle on the backs of commoners.

 

[whitehall]

"Should we start doing this"? The short answer is that we can't without amending the Constitution. What many modern Americans including educated Americans fail to understand or appreciate is that the U.S. is the only Country on the freaking globe that lists guaranteed rights of the people in what we loosely call the Bill of Rights aka the 1st ten Amendments to the Constitution. Other countries including English speaking countries can take away a citizen's right at the stroke of a magistrate's pen. It kind of makes you appreciate living in the greatest Country in the world ...or maybe not.

 

[Vastator]

"Should we start doing this"? The short answer is that we can't without amending the Constitution. What many modern Americans including educated Americans fail to understand or appreciate is that the U.S. is the only Country on the freaking globe that lists guaranteed rights of the people in what we loosely call the Bill of Rights aka the 1st ten Amendments to the Constitution. Other countries including English speaking countries can take away a citizen's right at the stroke of a magistrate's pen. It kind of makes you appreciate living in the greatest Country in the world ...or maybe not.

We already do actually. A person can be found not guilty in state court; only to then be tried in federal court for the same incident. It a distinction without difference.
Hell, even OJ was found not guilty, only to be punished in civil court for that which criminal court found him not guilty. It’s already her, alive, and well in the US. And it isn’t likely to diminish or go away anytime soon...

 

[justinacolmena]

A person can be found not guilty in state court; only to then be tried in federal court for the same incident.

The founding fathers complained bitterly about double jeopardy rules:

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: ...

A mock trial in a military jurisdiction, (a perfunctory court martial,) then would have prevented a future civilian prosecution of an officer for murder as presumably a military investigation had already taken place.

A mock trial is the only exception to the rules against double jeopardy. Is that ok?

 

[anotherlife]

When the government job sector remains the only viable economy in your country, then you will do everything to milk that, and you will write new laws to repeat every old job, to get paid for it again. So double jeopardy doesn't stand a chance.