“[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This is the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Throughout history, this clause has been widely considered a fundamental right, security for those who have already been accused and tried for their alleged wrongdoings. However, many recent court proceedings and not-guilty verdicts have enraged many members of the national community, making this little-understood clause the recipient of a lot of public attention. Is it possible that such a safeguard could, in fact, be hurting our legal system more than it is helping it?
First, we must understand exactly what the double jeopardy clause declares. It prohibits the government from prosecuting a person a second time for the same transgression after he or she has already been tried, acquitted, or convicted or if a judge prematurely terminated his or her first trial. Further, it protects a person from multiple punishments in successive proceedings for the same offence. It has been historically embedded within numerous societies: the Greeks, the Romans, the English. The basic concept of double jeopardy has almost always been widely understood and employed. And rightfully so. It inherently does rightfully protect those who have paid their dues to the legal system. However, it is possible for cases to slip through the cracks, allowing the double jeopardy clause to protect those who are inadvertently cheating the system.
Let’s consider the OJ Simpson trial of 1995, perhaps the most recognizable trial tied to double jeopardy. The former professional football star and actor was tried in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, his ex-wife and her friend. Despite a large body of evidence, at the end of this year-long trial, Simpson was acquitted, enraging the general public. Eleven years later, it was discovered Simpson was offered a one million dollar publishing advance for a book titled “If I Did It.” This book was meant to be a first-person account of how he could have killed Brown Simpson and Goldman. However, this collection of “hypothetical” descriptions of the killings included graphic and detailed scenes that seemed more like a confession than a fictitious story.
Or we can consider the Isaac Turnbaugh cause of 2004. This American Flatbread employee was accused of the first-degree murder of his coworker, Declan Lyons. He was tried and acquitted when his lawyer was able to raise reasonable doubt. In 2011, Turnbaugh allegedly called police in Montpelier, VT and confessed to the murder of Lyons, including details and speculations of the crime that had not been released to the public or discussed during the trial.
In both of these cases, and several more, the double jeopardy clause is attached, therefore forbidding the legal system from trying any of the accused again for conviction with new evidence. While many times this seems unfair—how can we continue to employ double jeopardy if it allows murderers to walk free?—there is a simple answer: It works many more times than it fails. For the small number of people who get to walk away scot-free, there are much larger numbers of people who are rightfully punished and rightfully acquitted.
Additionally, it promotes the right to a fair trial, the Sixth Amendment. By giving the legal system one opportunity to convict, it encourages law enforcers and prosecutors to make their best case the first time. It allows the defendant a thorough investigation and sound indictment with substantial evidence and justifiable cause to prosecute. It forces the legal system to do right by the defendant, giving him or her a fair trial and its best efforts.
But perhaps most importantly, the double jeopardy rule provides closure for the defendant. As Tom Melsheimer, an attorney at Fish and Richardson in Dallas states: “It’s about fairness to the defendant. The law says we’re not going to give the government multiple times to prosecute you. We are going to value finality more than we value the truth.” This isn’t to say that the law does not care about letting the guilty go, but rather to say at a certain point, we cannot allow the legal system to pursue cases limitlessly. A defendant should not live to expect a lifetime of investigations and trials. He or she should not be afraid to have a biased jury (finding unbiased jurors for successive trials becomes increasingly difficult as more people become informed about the trial). He or she should not be victim to compounding punishments. He or she should not be uncertain about life down the road because of successive trials.
With that being said, despite emotional cases and “unfair” verdicts, in regards to the double jeopardy rule, we should always keep in mind: It isn’t about focusing on the few that slip through the cracks, but rather the majority that are justly punished or justly acquitted.
Sources:
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=wmborj
http://abcnews.go.com/US/double-jeopardy-murder/story?id=14230469&singlePage=true
http://www.jstor.org/stable/844041
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-profit-case/story?id=14090596
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/isaac-turnbaugh_n_917477.html
This is a really great essay. Your focus on the double jeopardy clause was narrow enough that you were able to say something meaningful in only 700-900 words; you conceded a point to the opposing argument, and ended up using the admission that, “it isn’t about focusing on the few that slip through the cracks,” as a telling point in your argument; you ordered your other arguments according to importance, and therefore your last main paragraph, about the defendant’s right to closure, was incredibly powerful.
I think your essay is really well researched! It’s very thorough and the analysis is very good of the fifth amendment too. There are a lot of paragraphs which sometimes makes the flow a little choppy, so I think that putting some of the paragraphs together would strengthen your essay. Other than that good job!
I really liked this essay. Firstly, it was super interesting to read…who doesn’t like reading about murder cases? You also structured it really well so that it was easy to follow and precise. You did a good job explaining both sides of the case, though you could give more evidence towards the end on times when double jeopardy helped a person. Otherwise, great job!
Gina, I really liked your essay! I thought it was a creative topic and there is definitely something to be said about the Double Jeopardy Clause. I also really liked how you came up with a stance on such a broad topic. The essay was very easy to follow and understand. I would say that there should be more evidence to back your stance on the issue, such as giving more examples of the times that it has worked. Great essay!
Gina, I actually learned a lot from reading your essay. I thought that your choice of topic was very clever – it’s something different that captures the reader’s attention. I also thought that the structure and organization was spot on. It was really easy to follow the essay’s logic from one paragraph to the next. The two examples you gave of criminals who had wrongly been found not-guilty was validating to the essay, and promoted the idea that you are knowledgeable about the topic. One improvement to make: I think you need to add a little bit more evidence to back up the fact that “it works many more times than it fails”. Perhaps adding some “success stories” or any data could help strengthen your argument.