The Evolution Of Double Jeopardy Law: Why It's Crucial

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following an acquittal or conviction. The concept has a long history in criminal law and is based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no criminal defendant shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same criminal offence.

The idea of double jeopardy is to protect citizens from the government, which generally has more assets than the defendant. It prevents the government from using its superior resources to harass a citizen with multiple prosecutions, particularly when a jury has found a defendant not guilty. Double jeopardy also forces prosecutors to bring all relevant charges against a defendant and to review and prosecute a case competently.

To prevent harassment and the strain of multiple prosecutions

Double jeopardy laws are designed to prevent harassment and the strain of multiple prosecutions. The principle is based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no criminal defendant shall "be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same criminal offence. This means that once a case concludes, the government cannot prosecute a defendant again.

The double jeopardy law is designed to protect citizens from the government, which typically has more assets and resources. The law prevents the government from using its superior resources to harass citizens with multiple prosecutions, particularly after a jury has found a defendant not guilty. Successive prosecutions could have a significant monetary and emotional toll on defendants, even if they are acquitted of any wrongdoing. Double jeopardy laws also prevent the government from essentially wearing down a defendant until they plead guilty.

The law also forces prosecutors to bring all relevant charges against a defendant and to review and prosecute a case competently. Prosecutors have one chance to bring charges, which encourages wise decision-making about charging.

To validate a judge's decision or jury's verdict

Double jeopardy laws are designed to validate a judge's decision or a jury's verdict. If a jury acquits a defendant, double jeopardy laws prevent prosecutors from beginning the same case again, thereby undercutting the jury's verdict. This is true for bench trials as well, where a judge determines guilt.

Without double jeopardy laws, prosecutors could simply keep prosecuting a defendant until they found a jury willing to convict. Double jeopardy laws prevent this by barring multiple trials for the same offence.

Double jeopardy laws also force prosecutors to carefully consider their case and bring all relevant charges against a defendant. This requires them to review and prosecute a case competently.

To ensure prosecutors carefully consider their case

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following an acquittal or conviction. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence.

The double jeopardy clause gives due deference to a jury's verdict and forces prosecutors to bring all relevant charges against a defendant. It requires them to review and prosecute a case competently. Prosecutors must carefully consider their case and bring all relevant charges against a defendant as they get only one bite at the apple, so to speak. Their charging decision can have a huge amount of influence over a criminal case.

The charges influence any plea bargains and penalties. However, limiting prosecutors to one shot at a prosecution encourages wise decision-making about the charging decisions in each case.

To balance government power

The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is designed to protect citizens from their government. State and federal governments generally have more assets than defendants. Double jeopardy keeps the government from using its superior resources to harass a citizen with multiple prosecutions. This is particularly true when a jury has found a defendant not guilty.

The government has the resources to prosecute a defendant again, but the defendant likely does not have the luxury of defending themselves against multiple prosecutions. Even if the prosecution does not intentionally intend to wear down the defendant, successive prosecutions would likely have that effect.

Moreover, the government could use its first trial as another discovery period. Theoretically, this would allow the government to use the first trial as practice for its next prosecution.

Double jeopardy recognises the strain one criminal trial may cause. It seeks to minimise such damages by preventing further prosecutions for the same offence. Even if a jury acquits a defendant of any wrongdoing, both the monetary and emotional toll of the case can be significant.

Furthermore, without protections against double jeopardy, the government could essentially "wear down" a defendant until they plead guilty. Again, the government has nearly unlimited resources to prosecute compared to a defendant. Double jeopardy is a criminal defendant's shield against the government's vast resources.

To protect citizens from their government

The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution is designed to protect citizens from their government. State and federal governments generally have more assets than defendants. Double jeopardy prevents the government from using its superior resources to harass a citizen with multiple prosecutions. This is especially important when a jury has found a defendant not guilty.

The government has the resources to prosecute a defendant again, but the defendant likely does not. Even if the prosecution does not intentionally intend to wear down the defendant, successive prosecutions would likely have that effect. Without double jeopardy, the government could essentially "wear down" a defendant until they plead guilty.

Double jeopardy also recognises the strain one criminal trial may cause and seeks to minimise such damages by preventing further prosecutions for the same offence. Even if a jury acquits a defendant of any wrongdoing, both the monetary and emotional toll of the case can be significant.

The double jeopardy clause also gives due deference to a jury's verdict. It forces prosecutors to bring all relevant charges against a defendant, requiring them to review and prosecute a case competently.

Frequently asked questions