© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-fifth-amendment-outdated/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
It raises all our ire when a villain is denied punishment on a technicality, or worse, is acquitted on their slithering skills. There is some clamor that the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment is outdated; that with our newfangled means of divining evidence, should we acquit a man of a crime, and profound new evidence is found, the state should get another bite at trying to convict him.
There is a case in Britain testing this notion right now. Billy Dunlop has faced two juries as the Crown Prosecution Service has tried to convict him for murdering a pizza delivery girl in 1989. Neither jury could reach a verdict, and he was acquitted in 1991. Now the CPS claims to have uncovered “New and compelling evidence”, and wants another go at Billy in the court of appeals.
Personally, I loathe the idea of murder, but at the same time I disdain the possibility of a government hounding a person forever based on suspicion and/or a grudge.
The history of Double Jeopardy is a long and sordid one. It’s introduction in American law by James Madison was explained as “No person shall be subject … to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense.”, but was altered to the phrasing in the Constitution before going into effect. It was a principal deemed important enough to included in the Constitution because the people who were drafting it were accustomed to seeing lawmen setting sites on a man and pursuing him until they got a conviction. They had nothing to loose in such a relentless pursuit, and given enough time and practice, all defenses must falter when opposed by an unstopping force. The goal of the clause in the Fifth Amendment was to take the teeth out of the raging tiger, but still allow for the state—if it could make a convincing case—to still get its man. With this in place, now the state was hobbled with the need to find compelling evidence before prosecution began; with only one shot, it had better be a good one.
Because of this, many a guilty man has escaped punishment. Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society’s understanding, but on the other hand, it is better to let ten guilty persons go free than convict a single innocent one … isn’t it? Mistakes are made, it’s unavoidable, but when the innocent are convicted and punished, doesn’t that make the state the criminal?
The First Amendment is under constant barrage. The Second has been battered and bloodied. The Fourth is constantly being searched for loopholes, and nearly raped by the Patriot Act. And the Sixth is locked up and still awaiting arraignment. Let’s not lose the Fifth Amendment too.
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-fifth-amendment-outdated/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
I guess the family can always go the route of Suing for wrongful death or whatever they did in the O.J. trial. Of course, no money has changed hands and he is still a free man. BUT, what if he IS innocent?
There have been “theories” thrown around that it was his son and he was covering for him or maybe he hired a hit and wanted to see if it went down right. I never liked the fact that in some pictures, the van had no blood while on others there were. And the “CSI” guy was carrying around blood. What’s up with that?
I think the police messed up and planted evidence to strengthen their case. Not to mention Mark Furman, though somewhat redeeming himself with the Martha Moxley case and others, committed purgery by saying he NEVER used the N word. (I mean, can you believe he was on TAPE for that writer and of course, she felt compelled to turn it in.)
The bottom line was, the prosecution did NOT have a strong enough case; or at least did not put on a convincing one. They should have waited on it. Phone taps, observation and so on. If you take your time, sooner or later you get them; like Gotti and the taps in the apartment “nobody knew about.”
Anyway, perhaps some day they can get evidence that shows he planned it with someone else. Conspiracy to commit murder is a NEW Charge. Or maybe he saw his kid do it. Charge his son with the murders and him with failure to report a crime.
Too bad the case was a blunder start to finish. Police, CSI, Prosecution (something like…”Go ahead with the gloves.” I thought the Defense was going to have a party right there.) Judge, Jury being sequestered for entire trial. (I feel it should be deliberation only, keeping people locked up for months on end does NOT make a happy jury.)
But the U.S. and the U.K. will eventually turn over control to the U.N. There is no way the U.S. can please the “free world forever.” Check out the U.N. Charter. They will have great, great power; they just have not been given the reigns to Govern the world….yet. 5th Ammendment? One can only hope.
Not to get too picky, but “loose” means “not tight”. You should be spelling it “lose”, as in “to be unsuccessful in retaining possession of”.
I saw that two. : ) But did you catch mi blunder above? TAPS instead of Tapes. And I try so hard.
:::sniff::: a tear
If we want to get really picky, it’s also “sights” not “sites”. It comes from a rifle’s sights.
Yeah right, see the “mighty US” surender it’s control to the UN… as if.
This is another preaching of the JW, or what ?
TanoPrime said: “Yeah right, see the “mighty US” surender it’s control to the UN… as if.
This is another preaching of the JW, or what ?”
Nope. Did one hurt your feelings one time or something? Maybe turn you down for a date? Get off it.
The First Amendment is under constant barrage. The Second has been battered and bloodied. The Fourth is constantly being searched for loopholes, and nearly raped by the Patriot Act. And the Sixth is locked up and still awaiting arraignment. Let’s not lose the Fifth Amendment too.
For the benefit of non-American readers, can you please state what all these Amendments say?
Mez said: “For the benefit of non-American readers, can you please state what all these Amendments say?”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
and let me apologize for the lack of spacing. i have laid out each amendment within its own paragraph but the preview shows them as all part of one large paragraph.
Omitting the last comma in the 2nd Amendment changes the meaning of the sentence to that of original intent by the Constitutional authors.
The “new and compelling evidence” in the case of Billy Dunlop was that he had admitted to murdering the girl, knowing that he couldn’t be retried. He was convicted for perjury and sent to prison for lying during his murder trials (saying he didn’t kill her when in fact he had); so in a sense he had been found legally guilty of murder but could not be sentenced for the offence. He was retried after changes were made to the double-jeopardy laws in England and Wales and he’s currently doing time for murder. In Scotland the old double jeopardy law is still in place.