OJ's confession!?

[Mise]

EDIT: BTW, I'm pretty sure British law also prohibits double jeopardy. Can anyone refute or confirm.

They introduced new laws in 2003 that allow an acquitted person to be tried again if there is "new and compelling evidence". So what warpus said, basically.

 

[Stegyre]

IMO abuse in either direction is unecessary and could be avoided.

And we are each entitled to our own opinions. I certainly don't begrudge you yours.

My opinion: there will always be abuse in one direction or another, so you set up the system to limit the particular kind of abuse you would regard as the most egregious. This is the old, "should we jail ninety-nine innocents to catch one criminal, or let ninety-nine criminals go free to avoid jailing one innocent." (There was a time when I thought we knew the answer to that question. )

Hypothetically, what you propose is possible. Something somewhat like it exists in civil proceedings, called a Rule 60(b) Motion, where one seeks relief from a judgment because of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, etc. It's a pretty difficult standard to meet (as it should be), and it also cannot be brought more than one year from the challenged judgment (where fraud or newly discovered evidence are claimed). Thus, OJ would be safe even under that rule.

Practically, of course, the problem with any change is that it will require a constitutional amendment. Maybe it could be a rider on the anti-gay marriage amendment?

EDIT: @ Mise, thanks! Has that been upheld in the courts? The British system is so very different, because of an "unwritten constitution." It would be interesting to see how/if the change actually plays out. That would probably be a longtime coming, however: we'd need a defendant who gets hailed into court for a second time after an acquittal before there is anything to argue.

 

[Sidhe]

So if someone's found innocent, and then 2 months later, a neighbour (who had been on holiday for a while, and/or was too scared to come forward at the time, and/or had lost the video but then found it later) brings a video tape of the murder which clearly shows the "innocent" guy stabbing the victim repeatedly and burying him under his back patio, and the police dig up the back patio and find the victim, and the "innocent" guy confesses to the crime, and is very sorry and demands to go to jail for the horrible crime that he commited, your Bill of Rights, which was written 300 years before any of this happened with no knowledge whatsoever of the crime or the circumstances, would forbid it, and the judge, jury, police, politicians, family from both sides, and the entire United States of America, would go along with that decision?

Indeed, but it is based on the English system that a defendant is not subject to second trial of the same crime. Interestingly this law apperently originally came about to prevent retrial by canonical law, which I would imagine has far less likelihood of being fair, at least in history. That said though as you mentioned, recently the law in the UK has been changed so that if new evidence is presented that is considered to be of enough significance to bring the verdict into question, then there can be a second trial.

Here's an interesting article on why the law was changed.

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue5/james5.html

“The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offence, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” (Green v US 355 US 184 (1957) p.187)

On the surface this seems reasonable but as the article maintains it is open to abuse, I agree there should be overwhelming reason to re-open a case and such consideration should only be given to crimes where there has been an obvious incompetence or an initial ignorance of very damming evidence.

You should also consider that a man's innocence may be proven by a second trial, and take this into account.

 

[Shadylookin]

You're not actually addressing my solution to the problem you're repeating.

because your solution is to try them repeatedly and I'm saying that's a bad thing.

To even make it to trial something must go through a grand jury, so if it made it once it would probably make it through again. Besides look at how long it took to try oj simpson the first time. I know no one is sympathetic to OJ but what about a truly innocent person should he have to go through all those years of the legal process again after he has been pronounced by a jury of his peers to be not guilty.

Besides there is already a solution to this. Don't put someone up for trial if you don't have enough evidence. Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations so you can always put the case aside until you can collect enough evidence to get a conviction.

So if someone's found innocent, and then 2 months later, a neighbour (who had been on holiday for a while, and/or was too scared to come forward at the time, and/or had lost the video but then found it later) brings a video tape of the murder which clearly shows the "innocent" guy stabbing the victim repeatedly and burying him under his back patio, and the police dig up the back patio and find the victim, and the "innocent" guy confesses to the crime, and is very sorry and demands to go to jail for the horrible crime that he commited, your Bill of Rights, which was written 300 years before any of this happened with no knowledge whatsoever of the crime or the circumstances, would forbid it, and the judge, jury, police, politicians, family from both sides, and the entire United States of America, would go along with that decision?

now you're getting it.