Double Jeopardy and Criminal Charges

The concept of double jeopardy stems from a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states that:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury [...] nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

This clause was introduced as a way to prevent prosecutorial abuse, i.e., putting the defendant through trial after trial in pursuit of a guilty verdict. It essentially prohibits any defendant from being put on trial more than once for the same crime. As a side effect, it also limits the access of criminal prosecutors to the appeals system; while a defendant can appeal a verdict in favor of the prosecution, the opposite is usually not allowed (that is, prosecutors cannot appeal a “not guilty” verdict).

The interpretation of the double jeopardy cause has limits, however. Several Supreme Court rulings have specified standards by which double jeopardy claims are to be evaluated. In Blockburger v. United States, for example, the Court stated that a defendant can be tried for two offenses arising from the same conduct if “each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” If this criterion is met, trying the defendant twice does not violate the double jeopardy clause.

On the other hand, expansion of double jeopardy protections has also occurred over time. In Benton v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that, while the double jeopardy clause is not applicable to the states in and of itself, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does provide for double jeopardy enforcement at the state level.

Criticism of Double Jeopardy

While few people truly feel that the double jeopardy clause is unnecessary or excessive, many do believe that it somewhat undermines the effectiveness of the American law enforcement and justice systems. Having a case dismissed through double jeopardy is what many would refer to as “getting off on a technicality,” i.e., “winning” a case without actually needing to argue the merits or evidence involved.

See Also : insulation promote web insulation