Double Jeopardy: Necessary for Justice?
This essay will argue that the amendments made to the double jeopardy rule were necessary to improve justice. It will first show that the amendments improve the possibility of achieving justice on principle and for victims by holding the guilty accountable. It will then proceed to examine claims that the implementation of the amendments can create injustice, arguing that the benefits for justice outweigh the costs of such injustices. Thirdly, the essay will discuss how the amendments, including the retrospective effect, improve justice as new DNA evidence is discovered. Finally, it will analyze improvements to justice through the amendments’ positive effects on the justice system.
1. Holding the guilty accountable
In the Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, it was stated that ‘the whole point of a criminal justice system is to bring criminals to justice’. The double jeopardy rule contradicts this, giving guilty individuals effective ‘immunity from conviction and punishment’ after acquittal. The adjustments hold such individuals legally accountable for their actions indefinitely, as opposed to until the verdict is announced. Hence although it is unlikely that all acquitted criminals will be brought to justice, justice is still improved in principle as they remain liable for their wrongdoings.
The most tangible form of justice attainable from the amendments would be for victims and their family and friends. The double jeopardy rule creates an imbalance in the justice system as it protects in absolute terms the rights of the defendant over that of the victim and their families as in the case of Julie Hogg. The availability of appeal for defendants causes further injustice as the double jeopardy rule prevents retrials in the same situations in reverse scenarios. The amendments bring a balance to the justice system by attaining justice for victims and their families and taking their rights into account.
2. Interests of justice outweigh
1. Holding the guilty accountable
In the Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, it was stated that ‘the whole point of a criminal justice system is to bring criminals to justice’. The double jeopardy rule contradicts this, giving guilty individuals effective ‘immunity from conviction and punishment’ after acquittal. The adjustments hold such individuals legally accountable for their actions indefinitely, as opposed to until the verdict is announced. Hence although it is unlikely that all acquitted criminals will be brought to justice, justice is still improved in principle as they remain liable for their wrongdoings.
The most tangible form of justice attainable from the amendments would be for victims and their family and friends. The double jeopardy rule creates an imbalance in the justice system as it protects in absolute terms the rights of the defendant over that of the victim and their families as in the case of Julie Hogg. The availability of appeal for defendants causes further injustice as the double jeopardy rule prevents retrials in the same situations in reverse scenarios. The amendments bring a balance to the justice system by attaining justice for victims and their families and taking their rights into account.
2. Interests of justice outweigh
Bibliography: Reports Law Commission, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals (Law Com No 267, 2001) Law Commission, Double Jeopardy (Law Com No 156, 2000) House of Commons, The Double Jeopardy Rule (The Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, 1999-2000) House of Commons, Double Jeopardy (Standard Note of the Home Affairs Section 1082, 2009) House of Commons, The Criminal Justice Bill: Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals (Research Paper 02/74, 2002) Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper on Double Jeopardy (DP No 41, 2009) Scottish Law Commission, Report on Double Jeopardy (Scot Law Com No 218, 2009) Macpherson, Sir William. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (CM 4262-1, 1999) Lord Justice Auld [ 1 ]. House of Commons, Double Jeopardy (Standard Note of the Home Affairs Section 1082, 2009) para A [ 2 ] [ 8 ]. House of Commons, The Double Jeopardy Rule (The Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee 1999-2000) para 3 [ 9 ] [ 10 ]. Law Commission, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals (Law Com No 267, 2001) para 4.46 [ 11 ]