Double Jeopardy Claims In Fatal Shooting Case

898 Words 4 Pages
Double Jeopardy, in the Fifth Amendment, claims that one cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Once a trial has ended the government cannot choose to include new evidence and put a person on trial again. The right of Double Jeopardy is extremely important because it hinders the government from having the power to continuously try a person for the same crime. To be put on trial multiple times can get expensive, therefore it would make the most sense to only put a person on trial once. Although people should be tried if they have sincerely done something wrong, Double Jeopardy protects the defendants from having to constantly fear that they will be imprisoned. One should not be tried twice for a crime because the government should not have the right to spend the defendant's money, waste their time, and risk their imprisonment for the second time. The idea of Double Jeopardy was inspired by three men in England who had the law of not being charged twice for capital felonies. This law was brought to and modified in the American colonies. The American government decided to make the law for all situations. It was brought down from England, and the Founding Fathers decided it was a right that was necessary for the people. The right to Double Jeopardy is a basic human right that people deserve to have in order to …show more content…
He was tried and acquitted. The judge wanted to retry Strawn after finding new evidence of the murder, but the defendant claimed that he is not allowed to retry him because of the right of Double Jeopardy. The judge did not think that the law of Double Jeopardy would apply because of the brutality of the crime. In the end, the defendant did not have to be retried. Double jeopardy was able to protect him from potentially being sent to jail for the rest of his

Related Documents