Double Jeopardy

[WillJ]

In case you've never seen the movie Double Jeopardy, its premise is that a woman is wrongly convicted of the murder of her husband (in fact, the husband is alive; he faked the murder to escape serious debt). She then gets out of prison via parole, and is now legally able to kill the man (which would be pretty satisfying for her; he ruined her life by "accidentally framing" her). The reason for this is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that denies the state the right to try a person twice for the same crime.

But isn't this completely and utterly untrue? If I'm not mistaken, a crime is not defied by something as simple as, "murder of Person X" or something equivalent. Rather, it is defined by an actual *ACT*, and in the case of the movie mentioned above, the (nonexistant) murder of the husband early on and the (actual) murder of him later are two different *ACTS*, and therefore each one can be tried. Of course, if the woman does kill him, a jury might not be willing to convict the woman a second time, since she's already done the time, but that's not the point.

Thoughts?

 

[Shadylookin]

you can't be tried twice for the same case, but since they are 2 different cases you are correct. like if you steal something and get convicted and then you steal something years later you are punished for stealing twice, even though they are the same crime. Off course you should just lighten up, it's only a movie Will

 

[WillJ]

you can't be tried twice for the same case, but since they are 2 different cases you are correct. like if you steal something and get convicted and then you steal something years later you are punished for stealing twice, even though they are the same crime.

Woah, hold on there, you're taking the "retardness level" () up a notch, because I think we can all agree the DJ ammendment doesn't mean "crime" as in "theft," "murder," "rape," etc. After all, if it did, there wouldn't be such a thing as a serial-rapist.

What still seems to be in question, though, is whether something like "the rape of Jane Kenelio" is enough to define a crime. The movie implies that it is; I (and you) think otherwise. Do you know for sure, or are you just using common sense?

Edit: Change "crime" to "offense," since that's the word the Constitution uses.

Off course you should just lighten up, it's only a movie Will

Hehe, nah, I'm not condemning the movie for being inaccurate.

It's just that I wanted to find out how it really works in the legal world. For, ahem, personal reasons.

 

[cgannon64]

I think you're right.

Also, I think there can be a second trial for the same crime if new evidences comes up; for example, they find some DNA that proves you innocent.

 

[WillJ]

Also, I think there can be a second trial for the same crime if new evidences comes up; for example, they find some DNA that proves you innocent.

Proves you innocent? Yes, but that's just because it'd be an appeal.

If they find new evidence proving you *guilty*, then I'm 99% sure there COULDN'T be another trial. The state would have lost its chance to prosecute you.

 

[sourboy]

Well obviously it wouldn't have to get that far.

In this case we are talking about killing someone who you were already convicted of killing. Obviously, in order to kill them the second time, the crime didn't take place the first time, thus allowing a retrial.

Now the real question is, how is the new sentence effected?

I mean the whole purpose of modern prison sentences are to punish & reform, but in this case - a murder happens after the so-called reform. Does this make the new sentence more harsh? -OR- Since the first murder conviction was unjust, is the new sentence easier since the person already did time for the crime [they were yet to do], which ultimately led to the [actual] crime - out of revenge?

 

[Shadylookin]

Woah, hold on there, you're taking the "retardness level" () up a notch, because I think we can all agree the DJ ammendment doesn't mean "crime" as in "theft," "murder," "rape," etc. After all, if it did, there wouldn't be such a thing as a serial-rapist.

What still seems to be in question, though, is whether something like "the rape of Jane Kenelio" is enough to define a crime. The movie implies that it is; I (and you) think otherwise. Do you know for sure, or are you just using common sense?

Edit: Change "crime" to "offense," since that's the word the Constitution uses.Hehe, nah, I'm not condemning the movie for being inaccurate.

It's just that I wanted to find out how it really works in the legal world. For, ahem, personal reasons.

double jeopardy works for all crimes. If i stole an old ladies purse on the night of friday december 3 1999 and was found not guilty, they could not come up a week later and try me for it again. If however commited this act got off, and then 6 months later I stole the old ladies purse again they could try me for stealing the old ladies purse then.

 

[WillJ]

double jeopardy works for all crimes. If i stole an old ladies purse on the night of friday december 3 1999 and was found not guilty, they could not come up a week later and try me for it again. If however commited this act got off, and then 6 months later I stole the old ladies purse again they could try me for stealing the old ladies purse then.

I think you misinterpreted my point. My point is that in this context, "rape" is NOT an offense. Nor is "murder." Nor is "larceny." But rather, an offense needs something more specific to be defined. The point in starting this thread was to find out just how specific it needs to get. The movie Double Jeopardy implies that "murder of John Bobbleman" or whatever is specific enough, but everyone here (including you and me) seems to disagree.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Now about the movie scenario. I thought that if you were charged of the murder of somebody, and found guilty even if you didn't do it you couldn't be tried again. I mean I could see if you were charged of manslaughter for the first trial, then for the second charged of second or first degree murder, that'd be a different story.

 

[WillJ]

Now about the movie scenario. I thought that if you were charged of the murder of somebody, and found guilty even if you didn't do it you couldn't be tried again.

That's what the movie would have you think, but I (and it seems like most others) think that the DJ clause in the Constitution applies to being tried twice for the same act, and in the movie scenario there were obviously two different acts. As far as I know, though, we have yet to hear from somebody with actual American legal experience.

I mean I could see if you were charged of manslaughter for the first trial, then for the second charged of second or first degree murder, that'd be a different story.

That's an interesting idea. Even if the movie were right in that the woman couldn't be tried twice, couldn't the state just change the charge from, say, first-degree murder to second-degree murder?