Double Jeopardy

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how the double jeopardy clause is part of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and categorically prohibits re-trial for the same offense. It looks at how the rule is aimed at restricting the powers of the government, protect the individuals from uncertainty about their fate, and encourage "finality" in the criminal justice system. It provides an overview of the double jeopardy clause and also includes an analysis of the clause aimed at deciphering its exact meaning and intent, differing interpretations of the rule by U.S. courts, and the pros and cons of the rule.

Outline
The Underlying Philosophy
Origins and History
Development and Scope
Contradictory Rulings
Pros and Cons of the Double Jeopardy Clause
What Should be Done?
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"The double jeopardy rule is said to have its origins in the controversy between the King of England, Henry II and Thomas Becket in the 12th century AD over the issue that clerics convicted in a religious court may not be punished again in the King's court. The maxim of "no man ought to be punished twice for the same offence" was in turn based on St Jerome's commentary in AD 391 on the prophet Nahum: "For God judges not twice for the same offence". Over the following centuries, legal theorists such as Englishmen Edward Coke and William Blackstone recognized the importance the "double jeopardy" principle. Specific prohibition of multiple trials for the same offense, however, was not enshrined in British law. Only in very special circumstances could a defendant plead prior conviction or acquittal to defeat the prosecution."

More papers on Double Jeopardy:

• Essay # 23406 : "Double Jeopardy and Legislative Limitations"
• Term Paper # 103056 : "The Double Jeopardy Clause"
• Essay # 49508 : "Double Jeopardy"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: