Double Jeopardy

Author

Institution

Introduction

The judiciary has been one of the most fundamental pillars of the United States, as is the case for other countries. It is mainly charged with the responsibility of interpreting laws, as well as deciding cases between offenders and their plaintiffs so as to ensure that justice is done for all. Cases brought to the judiciary have varying levels of technicalities. This is especially in the case of criminal cases where the prosecution is expected to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that an individual committed a particular offense. Needless to say, this is not always easy as volumes of evidence must be used to demonstrate culpability beyond reasonable doubt. This underlines the fact that there are instances where an individual will be taken through a criminal trial and released on the basis of insufficient evidence (Burchell & Milton, 2005). Of course it would be reasonable to expect that the individual would be brought to trial in case more evidence showing his culpability is shown. However, this is not the case, thanks to the introduction of double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy eliminates the technicality in law and prevents the prosecution of an individual that has previously been acquitted in criminal trials by appeal court judges, jury or even the judge (Burchell & Milton, 2005). Its entry has been triggered by the notoriety in the contemporary times that has resulted from increased crime solving capabilities thanks to forensic science developments, as well as the increased response of media to public demand for increased exposure of issues pertaining to law and order (Burchell & Milton, 2005). This law is aimed at protecting against prosecutors that would maliciously and spitefully abuse their authority through persistently bringing an individual whose previous prosecution may have humiliated them, as well as to ensure closure, absoluteness and finality to court decisions (Burchell & Milton, 2005).

In the case provided, double jeopardy occurred when the jury denied the individual bail considering the nature of the trial and then went ahead to convict him on multiple charges that related to assault. This is especially considering that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

However, I feel that the jury may not have been unduly influenced by the decision of the defendant not to take a witness stand in his own defense. This is especially considering that the defendant was positively identified by the plaintiff. His refusal to take a witness stand in his own case may have resulted from the fact that his testimony would have implicated him. On the same note, the Fifth Amendment of the United States constitution prohibits jurors from making reference to the refusal of the defendant to testify when making a decision as to the guilt of the defendant (Gardner & Anderson, 2009). On the same note, in Griffin v. California (1965), the jury ruled that the prosecutors are prohibited from making inference of guilt from the refusal of a defendant to testify or take the witness stand in his own defense. This is because the defendant may have had reasonable fear of the prosecution even while he may have been innocent, in which case the law protects the individual from self-incrimination (Gardner & Anderson, 2009).

There exists varied constitutional safeguards against that would apply for the defendant choosing not to testify in his defense. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no individual would be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. However, this law is subject to the interpretation by courts. The Fifth Amendment during trial gives a criminal defendant the right to decline to testify (Lippman, 2010). This underlines the fact that the defendant’s own lawyer, the judge and prosecutor would not force the defendant to be a witness against his own will (Lippman, 2010). However, in cases where the defendant chooses to take the witness stand the defendant would not elect to answer some questions and fail to answer others. In instances where the defendant pleads the fifth (elects not to take the witness stand in his own case), jurors are prohibited from considering the refusal in deciding whether the individual is guilty (Gardner & Anderson, 2009). This position was held by the Supreme Court in Ohio v. Reiner in 2001, where it decided that a witness may incorporate some reasonable fears of prosecution even when he or she is innocent of any wrongdoing. This law aims at protecting innocent individuals who may have been ensnared by unclear circumstances (Scheb & Scheb, 2011). This law is not limited to criminal cases but also civil cases in cases where the testimony would result to the opening them up of criminal charges (Scheb & Scheb, 2011). However, they would not enjoy similar protections against bias from the jury as far as liability is concerned, in which case the jury would be free to make inferences in instances where a defendant chooses not to make a testimony in a civil case fearing self-incrimination (Scheb & Scheb, 2011). In essence, civil defendants in such instances usually claim ignorance rather than pleading the fifth.

While varied theories of punishment may be applied in the case of this defendant, I would primarily apply reformative theory of punishment, as well as retributive theory. Reformative theory mainly revolves around reforming the criminal’s behavior. This theory is mainly based on the idea that no individual is born a criminal (Samaha, 2011). In fact, research shows that criminal behaviors are learned rather than genetic, in which case they can always be unlearned. In most cases, criminals are a product of the economic, social, as well as the environmental conditions of the areas or societies in which an individual is brought up (Gardner & Anderson, 2009). Different individuals have different methods of coping with difficult situations. The only difference between the defendant and others who may have been in similar environments is the technique of coping with the varied pressures (Samaha, 2011). In essence, reformative theory would seek to re-educate the defendant and train him so that they can unlearn the criminal tendencies of coping with the pressures and become competent members of the society. This theory has, for a long time, been successful in cases of young offenders.

In conclusion, double jeopardy provision was introduced in an effort to hinder prosecutors from prosecuting individuals for the same offense after they have been cleared of it by a jury, panel of judges or the appeal judges. This was aimed at bringing closure and finality to court decisions. The judges in the case provided may not have been influenced or biased against the defendant due to his decision not to take the witness stand in the case (Samaha, 2011). This is because they are prohibited from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution from making inference as to the liability of the defendant from his decision not to be a witness. Defendants are protected by the Fifth Amendment from being pressured by any party to make a testimony.

References

Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal law. Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learninig.

Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2009). Criminal law. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Lippman, M. R. (2010). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Scheb, J. M., & Scheb, J. M. (2011). Criminal law and procedure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Burchell, J. M., & Milton, J. (2005). Principles of criminal law. Lansdowne [South Africa: Juta.