Debate Against Double Jeopardy

A very good morning I bid to the honourable adjudicators, precise timekeepers, fellow members of the government, members of the opposition. We are gathered here today to debate on a very important motion that is “this house would abolish the defence of double jeopardy”. As the government, we, strongly back this motion. To address this motion, I am going to start off by highlighting some of the keywords and define the motion of today’s debate. Following this, I will present the first point of the government in order to support our stand. Now, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to point out some keywords that we the government, find to of the government, in order to support our stand. Firstly, double jeopardy is a general principle of English law that a person may not be tried twice for the same offence following a legitimate acquittal. This is a procedural defence that protect anyone who has been cleared of committing a crime from standing …show more content…
This law may ensure the guilty will not escape punishment. We believe that the nature of law is meant to bring justice to a society. Law is created to ensure the innocent to go free and the guilty to be punished as everyone have to pay for what they had done. But under the double jeopardy law, the acquitted person is immunated from any future prosecution even when new convincing evidence is presented or he admit his guilt. Let me show you an example, in 2009, a cleared footballer admits killing his ex-girlfriend at a retrial when new evidence is found to overturn the previous verdict. But under double jeopardy law, he is remained set free as he is acquitted at the previous trial. This is so unfair as we should charge an individual by looking at the evidence and confession of the guilt but not whether they had a trial