NationStates Jolt Archive


Irish Justice Minister plans to abolish double jeopardy in some cases

Ifreann
19-06-2008, 17:56
Ahern announces plan to abolish double jeopardy rule

Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Editor and Elaine Edwards

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern has announced the abolition of the long practice of double jeopardy, where a person, once acquitted, could not be tried again for the same offence.

Announcing a package of measures for victims of crime, Mr Ahern said that he would be bringing forward a new Bill which would include mechanisms to deal with an acquittal where compelling new evidence of guilt emerges after an acquittal.

Cases could also be reopened where an acquittal arises from an error by a judge. New prosecutions could be brought where there was evidence that the original acquittal was tainted by interference with the trial process, including intimidation of witnesses.

The Bill would give discretion to the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring forward new prosecutions in these circumstances, he said, in cases of serious crime like rape, manslaughter and murder.

The announcement was made at the publication of a framework document prepared by the Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime, the recommendations of which the Minister said he intends to implement.

Also included in the package is a plan to reform the victim impact statement system used in courts, in order to give ‘victim status’ to the relatives of the dead person.

Measures to restrict “unjustified and vexatious” claims against the character of a deceased person during a trial are also included in the draft legislation.

In other measures announced as part of the overall package, a new executive office of the Department of Justice will be established to coordinate services for victims of crime.

A reconstituted Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime, which would have a role distributing funding to groups working with victims of crime, would also be set up.

Mr Ahern said the framework looks at how current support for victims of crime may be strengthened to ensure they receive adequate assistance in the aftermath of their experience of crime.

“I consider it important we are responsive to the needs of victims. It is vital that there is a coordinated approach to the delivery of services to support victims.

“It is my intention to accept the recommendations of the commission. I propose to move quickly to implement those recommendations.”

Mr Ahern said his department has already started preparation work on the legislation and it is expected to be brought before the Oireachtas early next year.

He paid tribute to the commission members who had given their consideration to this “very wide and complex area”.

Fine Gael spokesman on children, Alan Shatter, accused the Minister of “playing politics” with crime victims by “hawking about non existent legislation related to crime victims whilst planning to reject a fully drafted and comprehensive piece of legislation produced by Fine Gael last January that will be debated in the Dáil next week”

He called on the Minister to back the “comprehensive” Victims’ Rights Bill that he, Mr Shatter, had drafted and presented with his colleague, justice spokesman Charlie Flanagan, earlier this year.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said the changes proposed by the Minister would reduce the rights of those accused of crimes without improving life for victims.

"It is a fallacy that taking liberties from accused persons can enhance the lives of victims. If the Government is genuinely interested in advancing the situation of victims then it must adopt a rights-based approach, including a statutory charter for victims of crime," said ICCL director Mark Kelly.

"Instead, Minister Ahern has chosen to market as 'pro-victim' a series of half-baked measures limiting the rights of accused persons. Victims deserve a far better deal than this."

The body proposed its own Charter of Rights for the Victims of Crime as an alternative which is based on international human rights law principles, and sets out how the Government should protect and promote the rights of crime victims, with regards to information, protection and privacy.
Linky (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0619/breaking45.htm)
tl; dr If new compelling new evidence is found, if the judge fucked up, or if witnesses were intimidated, you could be tried again for the murder/manslaughter/rape you were previously acquitted of.

I'm not too sure about this whole thing. It doesn't sound too bad, as long as they stick to those restrictions. But since that whole PATRIOT Act thing, I'm sure we've all heard how fond governments are of power.
Laerod
19-06-2008, 17:59
Linky (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0619/breaking45.htm)
tl; dr If new compelling new evidence is found, if the judge fucked up, or if witnesses were intimidated, you could be tried again for the murder/manslaughter/rape you were previously acquitted of.

I'm not too sure about this whole thing. It doesn't sound too bad, as long as they stick to those restrictions. But since that whole PATRIOT Act thing, I'm sure we've all heard how fond governments are of power.In Germany, the double jeopardy is suspended if a witness gave false testimony in favor of the defendant. So it doesn't strike me as entirely unreasonable.
Psychotic Mongooses
19-06-2008, 18:07
Sounds alright to me considering they're just closing possible loopholes are allowing for further evidence to come to light.
Hotwife
19-06-2008, 18:17
Linky (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0619/breaking45.htm)
tl; dr If new compelling new evidence is found, if the judge fucked up, or if witnesses were intimidated, you could be tried again for the murder/manslaughter/rape you were previously acquitted of.

I'm not too sure about this whole thing. It doesn't sound too bad, as long as they stick to those restrictions. But since that whole PATRIOT Act thing, I'm sure we've all heard how fond governments are of power.

It doesn't sound completely unreasonable.

If, say, you were acquitted of first degree murder, and a week later, they found the murder weapon with your fingerprints on it, that's evidence for a new trial. If it could be proven that you had threatened the lives of the jury members or witnesses, that sounds good to me, too.

It's a fine point to say whether a judge made a mistake or not - you really have to show me that it was very egregious, i.e., you bribed the judge.
Smunkeeville
19-06-2008, 18:20
It doesn't sound completely unreasonable.

If, say, you were acquitted of first degree murder, and a week later, they found the murder weapon with your fingerprints on it, that's evidence for a new trial. If it could be proven that you had threatened the lives of the jury members or witnesses, that sounds good to me, too.

It's a fine point to say whether a judge made a mistake or not - you really have to show me that it was very egregious, i.e., you bribed the judge.
It's uncool.

"oh, uh.......I know he just got aquitted but we just now found this um... knife with his DNA on it"
"but......I didn't do it"
"we have your DNA"
"you took a sample already!"
"um.... we totally didn't frame you! new trial!"

uncool.

Double jeopardy is there for a reason.
Lunatic Goofballs
19-06-2008, 18:26
Sounds ghastly.
Laerod
19-06-2008, 18:27
Double jeopardy is there for a reason.
It's also not there for a reason.
Smunkeeville
19-06-2008, 18:33
It's also not there for a reason.

:mad:

Double jeopardy keeps the government in line. Without double jeopardy they'll just keep retrying you until they get what they want. There is no balance, there is no justice.
Laerod
19-06-2008, 18:34
:mad:

Double jeopardy keeps the government in line. Without double jeopardy they'll just keep retrying you until they get what they want. There is no balance, there is no justice.Like I pointed out, Germany has no unlimited double jeopardy, and yet, people don't get retried non-stop, because there are limits on how double jeopardy can be revoked.
Conserative Morality
19-06-2008, 18:43
:mad:

Double jeopardy keeps the government in line. Without double jeopardy they'll just keep retrying you until they get what they want. There is no balance, there is no justice.
There's justice anyway?:confused::p

Nothing can keep the government in line. We've tried everything. Double jeopardy only slows it;).

But yeah, Double jeopardy is needed.
Neo Art
19-06-2008, 20:48
That's actually already quite similar to how it works in the US already. It's a myth that once the jury says "not guilty" that there's absolutly no recourse.

That's true most of the time, but there are exceptions.
Hotwife
19-06-2008, 21:03
That's actually already quite similar to how it works in the US already. It's a myth that once the jury says "not guilty" that there's absolutly no recourse.

That's true most of the time, but there are exceptions.

You can also bring people up on other charges in another court.

Can't find people guilty for murder? Then find them guilty of violating the civil rights of the people they were tried for killing.
Gravlen
19-06-2008, 22:03
I don't mind it for the cases where witness intimidation has happened, because then the defendant has unduely influenced the proceedings.

As for new evidence, I'm torn, but inclined to be against it. The prosecution should be ready for trial and present all the evidence there. If that's not sufficient they should be able to present new evidence upon appeal.

However, with new technology comes new evidence. If DNA testing now could provide proof against someone tried 10 years ago... I'm not sure.

Mistakes by judges should be rectified upon appeal. There should be no need for a new trial - from scratch and after a final verdict of not guilty - in those cases.
Nadkor
20-06-2008, 02:44
:mad:

Double jeopardy keeps the government in line. Without double jeopardy they'll just keep retrying you until they get what they want. There is no balance, there is no justice.

So...a person gets acquitted on a murder charge, yet the police later find the murder weapon, which had been hidden, with his fingerprints on it...and it's fine that they can't be tried again?

A person gets acquitted on a murder charge and the testimony of the key defence witness turns out to be a complete fabrication...and it's fine that they can't be tried again?

A person gets acquitted on a murder charge and it turns out that the jury only voted for not guilty because they were misdirected by the judge...and it's fine that they can't be tried again?
Peepelonia
20-06-2008, 10:58
It's uncool.

"oh, uh.......I know he just got aquitted but we just now found this um... knife with his DNA on it"
"but......I didn't do it"
"we have your DNA"
"you took a sample already!"
"um.... we totally didn't frame you! new trial!"

uncool.

Double jeopardy is there for a reason.

I disagree, it sounds a good idea.

I know of case in which the people allegedly involved in a murder had the case thrown out of court for 'unfair press'. Now I know these defendants personaly(I aint saying who they are) and have done so for many years, they are not only more than capable of commiting this crime, I'm bloody sure that they did it.

Yes of course this law is there for a reason, and yes of course it is open to abuse if we abolish it, but then we have to weight up the pros and con, and I belive the pros win.
Vault 10
20-06-2008, 12:07
There are both pros and cons to double jeopardy rule.

Why it must be kept:
* First of all, it relieves the defendant of stress after the trial. Would you like to, after being tried and acquitted, further live knowing that at any time, it can be reconsidered? You'd live less, that's for sure.
* It also relieves him of problems in life. He can say "Shut up, I'm innocent" and live normally. Otherwise, he remains a publicly revealed suspect. Would you hire such a person? Maybe, but you'd have doubts, some would circulate rumours. Legal "He's innocent, period" shuts the mouths.
* As mentioned, it is an obstacle to corrupt cops. Opening free retry would make police extortion much more effective.

How limiting it might be useful:
* The exceptions would potentially allow the trials to be done sooner, since they can be reviewed if compelling evidence is found. That's only in theory, though, really police doesn't change the way they work, not towards lesser grip.
* Potentially getting guilty people for some cases, though I imagine rarely.


So I think exceptions can be in order, but as exceptions, granted by court.
Callisdrun
20-06-2008, 12:18
That is somewhat perturbing. While it is flawed, double jeopardy is there for a reason. It prevents people the government just wants to lock up from being tried over and over again until a jury is found that will convict them. I know that such a point has not been reached yet, but I don't like the possibilities this opens up. Double jeopardy also forces the prosecution to make sure its case is solid before proceeding if they want a good shot at conviction.
Gravlen
20-06-2008, 17:21
So...a person gets acquitted on a murder charge, yet the police later find the murder weapon, which had been hidden, with his fingerprints on it...and it's fine that they can't be tried again?
I don't know... But I think there should be an opening to try again here. If it changes the situation dramatically. (Why was he aquitted? What difference will the presence of the weapon make?)

A person gets acquitted on a murder charge and the testimony of the key defence witness turns out to be a complete fabrication...and it's fine that they can't be tried again?
Yes. That's not a mistake, nor is it new evidence that couldn't be uncovered in court or a "mistake" by the judge. The accused may not even have been involved in the fabrication - and that benefit of the doubt needs to be in favour of the accused. The witness may be charged with something like Obstruction of Justice and Purgery, and the accused may be charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice or something instead.

A person gets acquitted on a murder charge and it turns out that the jury only voted for not guilty because they were misdirected by the judge...and it's fine that they can't be tried again?
Yes. If the prosecution doesn't deal with that on appeal, there's no reason why it should be to the detriment of the accused.