That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like innocent until proven guilty). It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence, the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each acquittal, and try them again…
The USA still has a form of double jeopardy. Under our dual sovereignty system, federal and state authorities can both prosecute a defendant for the same underlying crime. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-double...
Juries do not decide punishments. They are often times NOT allowed to even know what punishments are (the thinking is that they would be more likely to acquit when those punishments would feel too hard for them).
They do in some cases. But your response misses the point entirely. How can a prosecution threaten a longer sentence when they don’t determine it?
> How can a prosecution threaten a longer sentence when they don’t determine it?
They do determine it in plea guilty process, actually. That being said, what they primary do is to manipulate charges - they add or remove charges to get the sentence they want. That process has nothing to do with what you actually done or not done. Charges are made big if you want trial. Charges are small if you accept plea guilty.
For practical purposes, prosecutors are key decision makers.
There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. There should be obvious difference between "minor new development" and "major new finding". Likewise, there should be obvious difference between "potentially innocent person is in prison" and "prosecutor wants new attempt…
> There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. Is that for real? It sounds positively Cardassian. Dukat: "On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins. And it's always the same." Sisko: "In that case, why bother with a trial at all?" Dukat: "Beca…
"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…
No such safeguard in Italy: people are regularly tried from three to up to five times. It’s not rare for someone to be found guilty after having been found not guilty once, and sometimes even twice. https://www.nicolaporro.it/uccise-il-padre-per-difendere-la-...
Even that article refers to the fact that the same principle applies in Italy too, though it's interpreted differently.
In the US (to take a reference) only convictions can be appealed, in Italy the prosecution can also appeal if the accused has been acquitted. Once the appeals have been exhausted however the principle applies
It's a weaker guarantee but it's incorrect to say that it's missing entirely
> There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. Is that for real? It sounds positively Cardassian. Dukat: "On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins. And it's always the same." Sisko: "In that case, why bother with a trial at all?" Dukat: "Beca…
Yes it was real. The person was executed.
Uh. So once again, Justice was served, and in the triumph of State over Evil, Order was assured.
"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…
Can't the German supreme court reopen cases?
The Swedish Supreme Court can reopen cases when there are new evidence, through there are some restrictions. The new evidence/circumstances need to be significant enough that if it was already known during the first trial, then the outcome would most likely been different. There also need to be a good and valid reason why the new evidence was not presented during the first trial.
New DNA technology has been the cause for such trials. Last year a person was found guilty of murder after 26 years, after being acquitted from a lack of evidence.
The case you're referring to is Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). The relevant excerpt is in Justice Antonin Scalia's concurrence [1]: > There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. ... > With any luck, we shall avo…
> Four months after the Court's ruling, Herrera was executed. His last words were: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins#Subsequent_...
Why did you start with the first phrase of the first amendment, redact the rest of that amendment and the beginning of the second, and then misquote the remainder? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years.
I have a pet theory which tends to annoy both major sides (not necessarily a sign of quality, but an interesting property) and it rests on three facts: 1. In the beginning everything in the Federal Constitution--and all the amendments--were understood to be only a restriction on the Federal government. 2. Many restrictions on the federal government were created out of states' concerns about it "going bad" and trying…
Perfectly reasonable in my book. Honestly for me its less important the guns themselves, ive never owned a functional firearm in my life, its everything else that gets regulated along with it. I remember doing some surface research on building a drone with an IR camera and basically every solution had low FPS, digging into it, the federal government restricts the sale of IR camera chips capable of producing high resolution/high fps, its a 'weapons technology'. Encryption is considered a weapons technology too, your ability to freely communicate over the internet plays second fiddle to the interests of the national security state. The idea that the government can restrict something on the basis that it could be used to create a weapon is the problem, that is insane.
This attitude prevents real progress, and results in additional injustice. The legal system is imperfect, and very flawed in some respects. The way forward is to understand the mechanism, and improve it, relentlessly. In the end it's a human institution and will be flawed, but that's all we have - humans all the way down. The people on the sideline saying it's all pointless are not only obstructing those doing actual…
You say its pointless standing on the sideline obstructing, whereas I think trying to save a system that cannot deliver justice by design is a waste of effort. Let me know when your relentless effort yields improvement.
It does, unquestionably, and it has, for generations. That's where all the justice you have now comes from, and every day I see improvements. Just as an example, most cities have stopped prosecuting marijuana possession offenses.
Not enough, not quickly enough, but that's because you're not helping.
> Four months after the Court's ruling, Herrera was executed. His last words were: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins#Subsequent_...
Seems like if they believed he was innocent they should’ve contacted the executive themselves to request a pardon.
People who become agents of the correctional system are not selected for their independence of thought, or openness to deviating from protocol.
Those are, in fact, actually qualities that are grounds for dismissal in selection processes for law enforcement; the on ramp of the corrections pipeline.
Any philosopher finding themselves in the System's custody may as well, despair. Before the Law, not even God's mercy will stay the wheels of Justice as she's wrought.