Argument: Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment

The problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before. 1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News:

Candidate 1: "The rule of law, by its very nature, serves the cause of justice. In doing so, it is often overturned, but only in order to ensure that justice is delivered and offenders punished. Protection from the state therefore is a principle that is relinquished by those who commit crimes; it is the protection of the state from such people that thereafter becomes paramount. The double jeopardy rule enshrines in law that the key factor in any trial is the quality of police work up to that point, rather than the actual guilt of the defendant. If abolished, vindictive policemen will not affect the integrity of the justice system, the case will still be judged by the quality of the evidence whilst the defendant will have recourse to protest their innocence. The potential for innocent people to go through the stress of further trials is a price worth paying to ensure the guilty do not walk free."
Candidate 2: "The overriding objective of the justice system is to ensure that the innocent go free, not that the guilty are punished, and the system should be orientated around that objective.

Ex post-facto confessions do not make someone ‘clearly guilty’ as false confessions can arise for a number of reasons, from boasting to an innocent misstatement.

It is also wrong to assume that new evidence is better evidence. The longer a trial takes place after a crime the less strong the evidence gets; memories get weaker, people go missing, evidence can be damaged etc. There is also the problem that in a re-trial any tactical advantage of ‘ambushing’ a witness in cross-examination is lost because they know that the ambush is coming. There are therefore a multitude of reasons why retrials are less likely to achieve convictions than a well prepared first trial."
Candidate 3: "Faith in the justice system is derived from it being been to be fair and even-handed. It is not merely faith on the part of victims that offenders will be found guilty, but faith on the part of innocent defendant that they will be found innocent.

The double jeopardy rule reinforces faith in the justice system because it forces the prosecution service to make the best possible case that they can – because they only get one shot to make it. It also means that defendants can feel secure in submitting themselves to trial on the basis that an acquittal represents complete security from future accusations.

Abolishing the double jeopardy rule would actually undermine confidence in the system – overturning an acquittal is an explicit statement that the system produces false negatives. If it becomes widely accepted that a not-guilty verdict is meaningless then the principle of the presumption of innocence loses its force."
Candidate 4: "The people who are protected by this rule are the guilty who are wrongly declared innocent; the murderer whose voice couldn’t be identified on the tape; the rapist who couldn’t be identified because DNA testing wasn’t sufficiently developed at the time; the robber who couldn’t be identified because facial mapping technology didn’t exist to show their face beneath the mask. People may in unguarded moments confess to crimes for which they have been found not guilty. Why would the state be in their favour and against the victims that so deserve justice - why should victims suffer because evidence didn’t emerge until later?

The test for guilt will still be 'reasonable doubt' - defendents who are genuinely innocent have no need to fear because they will still be found innocent."
Candidate 5: "Juries will know this is a retrial – because evidence will have to be ‘read’ from the first trial where witnesses have died, because notes from ‘last time’ will be available to advocates and the accused, because the legal procedure of the last trial will be subject to discussion in this one. If a jury knows a case has been brought again, there will be a presumption that the accused is guilty because a higher court has already decided that the new evidence makes the acquitted defendant now look guilty after all, and so granted a retrial. The presumption of innocence will no longer exist. And unless the system is going to be overwhelmed with retrials like this, in which case it would be unworkable, then second trial capacity can only (and rightly) be directed towards ‘exceptional’ cases. Such cases are well known - like that of the murder of Stephen Lawrence 1. How could individuals face trial again on the same charges, when in the glare of media attention it has been declared they should have been convicted at the first trial? How could they possibly expect a fair trial?

1. Akwagyiram, A. (2008, April 22). The legacy of Stephen Lawrence. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:"
Candidate 6: "Such restrictions on double jeopardy would not be effective in practice, for they attempt to put a value on the relative importance of crimes without using either the prospect of re-offending or the impact on victims. As QC Geoffrey Robertson noted in response to the Law Commission's finding, it is irrational to confine the possibility of re-trials to 'serious crimes' alone and exclude "repetitive, professional" crime like armed robbery. If the intention of the repeal is to bring both offenders to justice and prevent further crime, it is exactly the 'repetitive, professional' criminals who should be targeted."
Candidate 7: "Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times to ensure that defendants brought to trial are done so appropriately. DNA testing, voice identification technology, facial mapping techniques that reveal faces beneath masks - all can now solve cases and show guilt in individuals whose escape from punishment occurred only because of a lack of satisfactory evidence. For example, In 1963 when Hanratty stood trial for the A6 murder (a gruesome offence where the abused victim was shot in her car and left to die on the motorway), semen stains on the victim's underwear could not be investigated using the technology of the day1. He was convicted anyway on the facts, but if he hadn't been, and thanks to advances in technology the sperm turns out later to be his (as it has), shouldn't we use that evidence to obtain justice for those concerned? Some evidence couldn't possibly have been used at the time of trial, because the technology doesn't exist. Looked at now, it could demonstrate conclusive guilt. If such evidence exists, isn't there a compulsion to use it?2 How can we ignore it?

1 Foot, P. (2000, July 25). Hanratty was innocent. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian: 2 The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:"

The overriding objective of the justice system is to ensure that the innocent go free, not that the guilty are punished, and the system should be orientated around that objective.

Ex post-facto confessions do not make someone ‘clearly guilty’ as false confessions can arise for a number of reasons, from boasting to an innocent misstatement.

It is also wrong to assume that new evidence is better evidence. The longer a trial takes place after a crime the less strong the evidence gets; memories get weaker, people go missing, evidence can be damaged etc. There is also the problem that in a re-trial any tactical advantage of ‘ambushing’ a witness in cross-examination is lost because they know that the ambush is coming. There are therefore a multitude of reasons why retrials are less likely to achieve convictions than a well prepared first trial.
