Double jepordy has loopholes.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Double jepordy has loopholes.

I am not going to comment on the case or nature of the charge that lead me to make this post.

I am strictly going to defend the concept of double jeopardy and how it gets trampled on and how LONG TERM if we do not defend it, it hurts all of us.

The idea and concept behind it is rock solid. It is the idea that government cannot forever follow you around and keep re charging you for the same crime they failed to convict you on, has loopholes.

The loophole is basically an excuse to recharge the accused with the same crime, while claiming it is not the same crime. As much as I value our oversight in government, which can correct a mistake, this loophole is one of the scariest aspects of our current mindset.

Double jeopardy as far as what inspired me to make this post, is causing me to come to the conclusion that humans when they don't get what they want, INSIDE AND OUTSIDE law, will make excuses to get a do over.

There is a good reason for double jeopardy, and that is not just there for the accused, and without mentioning the case that led me to post this, I see that long term counter to government abuse of power, being shit upon. Laws certainly need some sort of judicial flux, but we cannot nor should we as a collective society, become a vigilante society long term.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I guess without details I

I guess without details I don't have much to comment on. The only significant and somewhat questionable exception to protection from double jeopardy I am aware of is when a person is tried in both a state court and a federal court for the same violation. SCOTUS has ruled that since state government and federal government are separate sovereigns they can each try you once. I believe the first SCOTUS case of this was US v. Lanza 260 U.S. 377 (1922), a case of a booze smuggler charged for violating both state and federal prohibition laws. Same goes if you break a law and go across state lines while breaking the same law you will be prosecuted by both states separately. The Court has ruled on the issue multiple times and has been consistent on ruling separate trials by multiple sovereigns is constitutional. 

For the federal/state problem the solution is simple, get rid of federal laws. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I guess

Beyond Saving wrote:

I guess without details I don't have much to comment on. The only significant and somewhat questionable exception to protection from double jeopardy I am aware of is when a person is tried in both a state court and a federal court for the same violation. SCOTUS has ruled that since state government and federal government are separate sovereigns they can each try you once. I believe the first SCOTUS case of this was US v. Lanza 260 U.S. 377 (1922), a case of a booze smuggler charged for violating both state and federal prohibition laws. Same goes if you break a law and go across state lines while breaking the same law you will be prosecuted by both states separately. The Court has ruled on the issue multiple times and has been consistent on ruling separate trials by multiple sovereigns is constitutional. 

For the federal/state problem the solution is simple, get rid of federal laws. 

Bullshit, are you fucking kidding? Make everything states rights? Hell we don't even have to discuss this issue on this topic. If you want to talk precedence here there is a long upheld concept of THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

If everything was about state rights all the fucking time then the states who ban atheists from public office wouldn't have been over turned.

You do know that there are some state states that still have on the books that people like you and me are unfit to sit on a jury or be a Notary Public or even serve as dog catcher.

Again, your core mantra is might makes right and money equals power.

If we are to limit the reach of government then this is a bad loop hole that allows a vigilante government. If we can say if the state doesn't get them the feds will, what is the difference between that and having no statute of limitations.

Just let the government do whatever it wants to you is what you are advocating.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bullshit, are

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, are you fucking kidding? Make everything states rights? Hell we don't even have to discuss this issue on this topic. If you want to talk precedence here there is a long upheld concept of THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

If everything was about state rights all the fucking time then the states who ban atheists from public office wouldn't have been over turned.

You do know that there are some state states that still have on the books that people like you and me are unfit to sit on a jury or be a Notary Public or even serve as dog catcher.

Again, your core mantra is might makes right and money equals power.

If we are to limit the reach of government then this is a bad loop hole that allows a vigilante government. If we can say if the state doesn't get them the feds will, what is the difference between that and having no statute of limitations.

Just let the government do whatever it wants to you is what you are advocating.

 

All I'm saying is that if there are already state laws against a crime, why do we need a federal law too? There is no reason to have duplicate laws. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I go the other way. If

I go the other way. If there's a federal law, why is there a state law saying the same thing?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I go the other

Vastet wrote:
I go the other way. If there's a federal law, why is there a state law saying the same thing?

Because the vast majority of our police are state law enforcement which enforce state law. Our federal law enforcement apparatus is nowhere near large enough to provide day to day law enforcement. Since most of our courts are state courts and most of our police are state police, it makes much more practical sense to keep the state laws.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ah yes, I often forget you

Ah yes, I often forget you have this crazy jurisdiction thing going on down there. It'd be so much simpler if state police weren't barred from enforcing federal law.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.