As was already explained, and contrary to what they tell you in that stupid movie, double jeopardy would not apply because you are being accused of a different instance of the crime. It's the same offense and has the same victim, but it's still a new instance. Obviously charging you with murdering someone again is implicitly admitting that your first conviction was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a new instance of the crime. Much like robbing a bank a second time is a new instance of a crime, even though it's the same crime and same victim.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
what if?
- Thread starter vslayer
- Start date
As was already explained, and contrary to what they tell you in that stupid movie, double jeopardy would not apply because you are being accused of a different instance of the crime. It's the same offense and has the same victim, but it's still a new instance. Obviously charging you with murdering someone again is implicitly admitting that your first conviction was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a new instance of the crime. Much like robbing a bank a second time is a new instance of a crime, even though it's the same crime and same victim.
tim840;
the threat of punishment doesnt prevent crime, the idea that they might get caught doesnt even cross the minds of most criminals.
I agree 100%
Therefore trying to make longer and more server sentencing guidelines in an attempt to scare people to be afraid of or thinking twice before committing a crime doesn’t work either.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If you did the time, can't you do the crime?
Although it's strange, this seems to be true. Back in the 1980s in the U.S. when they created really long mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers, people thought that it would pretty much eliminate the drug problem. "Surely no one will risk selling drugs if they know that they're looking at 20 years in prison for it!" people thought...but the idiot drug dealers just kept doing it, and now the jails are filling up. It's like some people are utterly incapable of weighing risks and benefits to assess whether or not a course of action is a good idea. Also most of the people who ARE able to weigh risks and benefits seem to constantly assume that everyone else thinks the way they do, which leads to things like harsh punishments that don't deter crime.I agree 100%
Therefore trying to make longer and more server sentencing guidelines in an attempt to scare people to be afraid of or thinking twice before committing a crime doesn’t work either.
Although it's strange, this seems to be true. Back in the 1980s in the U.S. when they created really long mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers, people thought that it would pretty much eliminate the drug problem. "Surely no one will risk selling drugs if they know that they're looking at 20 years in prison for it!" people thought...but the idiot drug dealers just kept doing it, and now the jails are filling up. It's like some people are utterly incapable of weighing risks and benefits to assess whether or not a course of action is a good idea. Also most of the people who ARE able to weigh risks and benefits seem to constantly assume that everyone else thinks the way they do, which leads to things like harsh punishments that don't deter crime.
Small problem with the thinking. 99% of drug dealers the choice is sell drugs or sleep on the streets. 20 years in prison getting fed, clothed and housed is still better than the streets.
TW Scott
and 90% of murders dont happen in a rational manner either, the mafia hitman type who do it for a buiness are the smallest percentage of those who comit murder. The greatest percentage are "crimes of passion", ie a partner who came home and found there partner cheating and lost the plot or other examples like it. these people arnt thinking A ALL, let alone about the sentance they will recive. its only after the crime is commited when they think about the sentance and trie to cover up there crime to escape the sentance.
in fact murder is the crime with the LOWEST reoffence rate even once you take the penelty into account.
and 90% of murders dont happen in a rational manner either, the mafia hitman type who do it for a buiness are the smallest percentage of those who comit murder. The greatest percentage are "crimes of passion", ie a partner who came home and found there partner cheating and lost the plot or other examples like it. these people arnt thinking A ALL, let alone about the sentance they will recive. its only after the crime is commited when they think about the sentance and trie to cover up there crime to escape the sentance.
in fact murder is the crime with the LOWEST reoffence rate even once you take the penelty into account.
1-Double jeopardy is when a person is found Not Guilty then tried for the SAME EXACT crime.
2-Whether it's robbery, murder, rape or not wearing a seatbelt, 1 incident being found not to be a crime doesn't affect whether another incident is a crime. Being proven Not Guilty in 1 incident (whether shortly after or years later) has nothing to do with guilt in another incident.
3-Being unfairly punished by the state doesn't justify murder.
2-Whether it's robbery, murder, rape or not wearing a seatbelt, 1 incident being found not to be a crime doesn't affect whether another incident is a crime. Being proven Not Guilty in 1 incident (whether shortly after or years later) has nothing to do with guilt in another incident.
3-Being unfairly punished by the state doesn't justify murder.
Accusation doesn't justify anything.
And unfair punishment is never justified. Hence the unfair part.
You could perhaps make that argument if you were deliberately framed by the person you were accused of killing, and you wanted to kill that specific person. But you wouldn't be justified in murdering whatever random person you felt like.but you would have said the punishment was completely fair had i actually killed someone, would it not be logical therefore, having already been punished, that i have the right to actually kill someone?
Of course, that's just a moral argument. There's no doubt that according to the law you WOULD be punished again, regardless of whatever moral arguments you wanted to make.