if someone was to serve a complete prison sentence for murder, then only after going free, be acquitted of it, would that person be entitled to commit a murder without facing punishment? an eye for an eye?
Actually, if they kill the person they supposedly killed in the first place, yeah they get to get away with murder. Otherwise no, usually the state compensates them for the time they spent in prison and issues a letter of apollogy as well as striking the case from your record.
I don't see how that would work. Are you saying that if they served for murder they didn't commit, then murdered after getting out? I don't see why they would get away with it. Sure they may receive compensation for the time they spent in prison while innocent, but murdering when out is a separate case and would be dealt with as that. Meaning they would serve, maybe give or take a few years depending on the crime and the verdict.
What he's showing here is the idiocy of the Eye for an Eye policy, if we follow it we should let that man kill whoever he pleases because he already served the time.
How can a person be charged with murder of someone who's dead body is proof of their murder then serve time, then be set loose then go back and kill the person who is already dead? This makes no sense to me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding this question? The other answer would be that if you were set free from one murder and then you commit another murder then you can be put back into prison for the second murder.
You don't always need a body to prove murder. I don't know. All I know about double jeopardy cases like this is from movies where a husband goes to jail for killing his wife in a blood soaked room and dumping her body at sea. The wife saved the blood, had a boyfriend spread it. And then went sailing with the husband, attacking him so he had wounds, and swam away so no body was found. Movie stuff.
but theyve already been punished for a murder, so it would be unfair to punish them for it again. is punishment really about making things right? or is it simply an act of anger by those they have wronged, wanting to make someone suffer like they have.
Punishment is not about making things right, and is not about taking revenge. It is about teaching a lesson, a lesson that you can't get away with killing another human being, that there are consequences for your actions. It is intended to prevent murders from happening by giving a potential murderer second thoughts.
Nah. If it was an offense where you get fined and they haven't returned the fine yet, they can just keep it. But if you are a murderer, you shouldn't be on the streets.
I can't see it as double jeopardy. You cannot, after being acquitted for robbing Bank Q on a certain date, then rob Bank Q on a later date. That is not the same crime. It is another crime that took place at another time.
tim840; the threat of punishment doesnt prevent crime, the idea that they might get caught doesnt even cross the minds of most criminals.
That's exactly the example that I was about to use. Double jeopardy wouldn't apply, because you are being charged with a different crime (even if the victim is the same person). Obviously it would mean that your first conviction was erroneous, but that doesn't change the fact that you're being charged with a different, new crime.
If you are convicted of killing a specific Bob Shire and serve your sentance, then later you find out that specific Bob Shire is living the good life you could walk right up to him and rip out his still beating heart and not be tried again. Why? Double Jeopardy. You were already tried and convicted for Bob Shire's death.
Actually it was wife was convicted for husbands supposed murder lol but yeah movie stuff. Actually a sufficient quantity of blood and proof that the person was in a certain place but then "disappeared" has been considered evidence of a murder.
True, but that is robbing a bank. Murdering a person never actually enters a date or time in the case as it is assumed that you can only murder a person once.
i saw that movie to and my thought was that is she shot him then they would charge her anyway, for instance with illegally discharging a weapon if they couldnt for murder
Yeah, but that is child's play compared to murder. Illegal discharge of a weapon is a slap on the wrist as they couldn't tie his death into the case in anyway or they'd get slapped with double jeopardy. Besides what jury would find her guilty once they heard the whole story.
yea but the cop standing next to her when she did it wouldnt ask "have you already been charged with this?" He would just shoot her
So a person exercises a bit of caution and makes sure there is no cop around. However even if a person has already fired (but not on police), police are supposed to give them a chance to surrender before they are allowed to shoot.
