Do you consider the loss of Double Jeopardy good or bad?

The problem with the change is it allows the prosecutor to bring charges before they have a case, and then try again if they don't get the results they want. Without the limit on retrials, they could keep 'finding' 'new evidence' and retrying you FOREVER.

Sorry, but the STATE cannot just keep coming to your house and arresting you for a crime until they get the prosecution they want.
What would stop them from arresting you on the courthouse steps and retrying you hoping to get a better jury?
You could spend years in jail and trials until the prosecutor gets what he wants, never being able to prove you ever did anything wrong.

That is not what double Jeopardy means. Read you torts.

Good it has already happened in the UK that people have been charged again and found guilty.
Time has moved on we now have DNA.

In the US, it's always been true that a case could be brought again if new "compelling" evidence was found. With advancements in DNA evidence, for example, the prosecution can present a much stronger case. It's the judges who get to decide whether the new evidence is "compelling".

Neutral

Good

Source(s):
....I am a retired police officer. I retired as a sergeant, after 29 years, from a very large department, about 12,000 officers. I was a patrol officer for 4 years in a very diverse area. I was a tactical officer in the high rise project areas of my city. We called it vertical patrol in that we walked the the stairways of the high rises most of the time. I did that for 5 years and was promoted by test to detective. I worked violent crime (homicide, sex, officer involved shootings, robbery, kidnapping, serious non property incidents) for 11 years until I was promoted to sergeant. I worked as a street supervisor, a bicycle patrol supervisor and a desk sergeant/watch commander.
During my time as a tactical officer and a detective I was a unit representative for the police union.
I have a B.A in English and an M.S. in Law Enforcement Administration....

Isja

In the US, charges can be brought in Federal court after a state court fails to get a conviction. I'd call that double jeopardy, but the SCOTUS doesn't seem to see it that way.

It is just easier for corrupt gov employees to falsify evidence and degrade an individuals legal standing. If false character information is created courts can use ID theft to their advantage--all they have to do is pay for it. Double jeopardy is circumvented that way.

Bad. There is also a deeper meaning to Double Jeopardy law and that is the repetition of Times, which is in series. By killing (or some other manner) the convicted, they could force the accused to repeat a trial, even though they may not have recommitted the crime, placing the individual's life/limb in jeopardy another Time.

yes