The Double jeopardy Clause
The double jeopardy clause is a part of the fifth amendment that "prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime" which means that if someone is tried for a crime, even if new evidence surfaces, they cannot be retried for that same crime. With most cases, this is a good thing because it allows people to move on from a trial and not be continually tried for it and reminded of what they did. However, in a trial like OJ and Darlie Routier, it can hinder justice from being served properly. With OJ, during the criminal trial, the prosecution did an extremely poor job of arguing their case and presenting the evidence which lead to OJ going free. One of the key pieces of evidence in the trial was the leather gloves since one was found at the crime scene and the other at OJ's house. Not only were the gloves connecting OJ to the crime scene by being at his house but they also tested positive for Nicole, Goldman and OJ's blood. This evidence alone could prove that OJ was guilty, unfortunately, after being told not to by Marsha Clarke, Jonnie Cochran presented the gloves and had OJ try them in court. The gloves did not fit OJ as his hands were allegedly swollen from not taking his arthritis medicine and the gloves shrunk from being covered in blood. Not only did this mistake made the jury doubt OJ's guilt but it also made the prosecution look silly and unprepared. From this, the trial went downhill and OJ was found not guilty and he went free. OJ was then tried in civil court and this time the prosecution studied the prosecution in the criminal trial and avoided the mistakes they made. Of the twelve jurors, only nine of them needed to vote guilty in order for OJ to be guilty but all twelve jurors found him guilty and he was fined a total of $33 million. This shows how clear the trial really was but the prosecution in the criminal trial presented their evidence terribly and thus let OJ be free. In this case, the trial should have been retried in the criminal court because OJ deserved to go to prison as he murdered two people brutally. I think that in murder trials, the double jeopardy rule should not always apply as the punishment is so different and we would be allowing murderers to go free.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy
That's so coincidental, I was reading about double jeopardy during lunch and then I saw this. It was from a case that's going to trial right now, called Gamble v. U.S. In that case, Gamble was convicted twice of possessing a gun after a felony conviction, once by the State of Alabama and once by the federal government. This was possible under the law of "separate sovereignty", which allows the same crime to be prosecuted twice by different powers, both state and federal. Although in the case of Gamble, this doesn't seem too fair, I agree that O.G. seemed to get off too easy because, even after he indicated guilt, he could not be placed under double jeopardy. So it would be kind of funny if the state had tried him separately and found him guilty of murder. But all we got was the civil suit.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/gamble-v-united-states-case-double-jeopardy/577342/
While I agree that OJ verdict was unfair due to its extraneous circumstances, I think that we should keep the double jeapordy clause. The American Justice System relies on the idea that it should be trusted. For us to admit that the system was wrong, goes against that very principle. The double jeapordy system is in place in order for people to have faith in our justice system. However, there are certain loopholes. One being the civil court. As you saw in the OJ case, he was found non guilty of the murders, but liable in the wrongful death lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post Lisa! I agree with you in that the double jeopardy clause definitely causes some problems in relation to murderers being let free, however, I think that if the justice system were to remove this clause for murder trials, then it has the potential to cause more problems because it is guaranteed in the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. Throughout history everyone has been given the right to this, and if it were to be removed, then it could cause some controversy. In terms of reducing the amount of murderers that go free, I agree with Kabir, in that there are loopholes through the civil court. I think for cases such as the OJ trials, this is the right solution as when there is such a large amount of evidence where any reasonable person could find the defendant guilty, it is fair that in these circumstances the civil court is used so that justice is served.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the rest of the comments on this post, I too agree that we should not get rid of the double jeapordy decision. Although someone who has committed a crime could easily get away once they are out of court, I feel that that is the only benefit. I feel that if the double jeopardy decision was to ever be removed, then there would be more disadvantages than advantages.
ReplyDelete