1 March 2013

A second look at double jeopardy laws [with poll]

1 March 2013 | Barcham

ABC News is reporting that the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions has called for reforms to double jeopardy laws.

The idea behind double jeopardy is to stop someone from being prosecuted repeatedly for a single crime, the DPP however feels that he should be allowed to re-prosecute if new evidence comes to light after the trial.

Understandably, a few people have expressed some concerns about these reforms.

Loading ...

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

DrKoresh3:14 pm 02 Mar 13

I confess, I took the Beaumont kiddies. Case solved, eh vg?

DrKoresh3:13 pm 02 Mar 13

johnboy said :

Easiest and most uneducated statement to make about this, which is destroyed if you pose a simple question.

What if the Police and judiciary DID do everything right the first time and evidence not available prior to the first trial becomes available, like, you know, a confession?

Tough titties? If all you have to go on is a confession then you haven’t really proven your case, have you?

Spiral3:10 pm 02 Mar 13

If someone is convicted and years later DNA evidence (or some other scientific advance) proves that they were innocent, then we expect they will be released (and probably get compensation).

If someone is found not guilty and years later DNA evidence (or some other scientific advance) proves that they were guilty, why shouldn’t they go to gaol, or at the very least face a second trial?

mareva3:01 pm 02 Mar 13

If someone is tried and acquitted due to insufficient evidence, and then some time later the missing piece of the evidentiary puzzle comes to light, it is a joke to not allow the prosecution to re-initiate the prosecution. It is just total fiction. And yet that is the system we have – everyone just turns a blind eye and holds up their hands and says, ‘oh well, too late now.’

It is quite often the case that evidence is simply not available to the prosecution at the requisite time. Like for instance, a witness simply will not talk. Suddenly years later they spill the beans completely, and further beans that corroborate their own beans.

This isn’t about police or prosecution incompetence. It is about fresh evidence the prosecution could not have known about at the time of the trial.

Get a grip people. It’s common sense.

As for those touting the human rights card, I find this website very strange. Most of the time you’re all bashing human rights saying lock em all up and throw away the key.

Gungahlin Al2:40 pm 02 Mar 13

DrKoresh said :

It’s unnecessary, if the police and judiciary do their jobs properly the first time then there shouldn’t be a need for repeated trials.

The real world is far from such black and white simplicity.

There have been stunning developments in evidence science such as DNA in just the last few years. Does anyone believe such development pace won’t continue, or indeed accelerate? Should not police have the ability use new tools to either correct or validate past decisions of concern? Would you be so quick with your retort if the victim was someone in your family?

Reply View 1 reply

johnboy2:52 pm 02 Mar 13

The question should be if police and prosecutors with their vast and ever expanding array of powers can’t get it right the first time now, why did we see fit to introduce the double jeopardy principal at a time when they had far less tools at their disposal?

Reply Hide replies

vg2:11 pm 02 Mar 13

DrKoresh said :

It’s unnecessary, if the police and judiciary do their jobs properly the first time then there shouldn’t be a need for repeated trials.

Easiest and most uneducated statement to make about this, which is destroyed if you pose a simple question.

What if the Police and judiciary DID do everything right the first time and evidence not available prior to the first trial becomes available, like, you know, a confession?

DrKoresh11:46 pm 01 Mar 13

It’s unnecessary, if the police and judiciary do their jobs properly the first time then there shouldn’t be a need for repeated trials.

bd849:28 pm 01 Mar 13

If you have the right to appeal a conviction based on new evidence, there should also be provisions for the prosecutions to provide new evidence to prosecute again. There are legal provisions to stop people appealing convictions repeatedly, you can do the same for prosecutions.

bigfeet5:58 pm 01 Mar 13

IrishPete said :

I’m much more concerned about people wrongly convicted than I am about a few wrongfully acquitted people. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

I like the quote from the Chinese Professor at the bottom of that page about Blackstone’s formula –

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer-

“Better for whom?

thebrownstreak694:08 pm 01 Mar 13

Tetranitrate said :

They must be awlfuly worried about the Eastman enquriry to want a second shot.

One day it will all come out, but by then it will be too late for anything meaningful beyond setting the record straight.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more