Eleanor Finch
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution contains the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits a defendant from being tried twice for the same offence. This clause is designed to protect individuals from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offence. The concept of double jeopardy has its origins in English common law, with some scholars suggesting it dates back to Roman law. While it primarily covers criminal punishment, civil penalties may also qualify if they are punitive in nature.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Double Jeopardy Clause |
| Amendment | Fifth Amendment |
| Purpose | To protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense |
| Application | Federal and state governments |
| Exceptions | Civil sanctions, civil asset forfeitures, fraud, and retrials after a successful appeal |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Double jeopardy protections
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution contains the double jeopardy clause, which prevents criminal defendants from multiple prosecutions for a single offence. The double jeopardy clause reflects the pattern of resistance to the arbitrary exercise of power that underlies other provisions of the Constitution.
The double jeopardy protection applies in both state and federal courts. It only applies in criminal cases and criminal law. Thus, the protection does not apply in civil lawsuits. The double jeopardy rule also bars multiple punishments for lesser included offences. A lesser included offence is an offence that the government must necessarily prove to convict someone for a greater offence.
Double jeopardy protection covers several phases of the legal process:
Trial
Once a jury has been empaneled and sworn in, or a judge begins hearing evidence in a bench trial, the jeopardy "attaches", and you are officially "in jeopardy". Once the trial concludes with a verdict, your "jeopardy" ends, and you cannot be tried again.
Retrial
A retrial is typically permissible if a trial ends without a verdict (e.g. a hung jury). However, you cannot be retried for the same offence once you are acquitted, even with new evidence.
Multiple Punishments
Double jeopardy also prevents the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offence in the same jurisdiction.
Exceptions
The protection against double jeopardy is not absolute. A few exceptions and scenarios exist in which the double jeopardy guarantee does not apply. These include:
- Separate Sovereigns Doctrine: This principle allows different jurisdictions (e.g. state and federal) to prosecute the same person for the same actions without violating the double jeopardy rule.
- Mistrials and Appeals: If a mistrial is declared due to circumstances like a hung jury, the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit a retrial. Furthermore, if you appeal a conviction and win, the prosecution can typically retry you, as the court usually simply reverses the decision for a retrial.
Amendments to the Constitution: Women's Rights
You may want to see also
Due process rights
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution provides several protections for criminal defendants, including the concept of "due process rights". One of the key protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment is the prohibition of double jeopardy, which means that a person cannot be prosecuted more than once for the same offence. This prevents the government from subjecting an individual to multiple trials and convictions for the same alleged act.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means that individuals accused of a crime have the right to a fair legal process, including the right to a grand jury and protection against self-incrimination. Due process rights ensure that defendants are treated fairly and justly throughout the legal proceedings.
While the Double Jeopardy Clause is important, some legal scholars argue that it is not as fundamental as other procedural rights of defendants. In the case of Palko v. Connecticut, the Court rejected the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all the provisions of the first eight Amendments as limitations on the states. Instead, the Court upheld the due process theory, which applies most of those Amendments to the states. In this context, it was argued that the absence of the Double Jeopardy Clause per se would not necessarily violate a defendant's due process rights unless the state created an "acute and shocking" hardship.
However, in Benton v. Maryland, the Court concluded that the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a fundamental ideal in the constitutional heritage. This highlights the importance of the Double Jeopardy Clause in protecting individuals from the burden and strain of multiple trials, which could enhance the government's ability to convict. Ultimately, the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy is an essential component of due process rights, ensuring that defendants are not subjected to unfair or undue hardships during legal proceedings.
In summary, the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of double jeopardy is a crucial aspect of due process rights, safeguarding individuals from multiple prosecutions and convictions for the same offence. By guaranteeing due process of law, the Fifth Amendment ensures that defendants receive a fair trial and are protected from unjust hardships, including the strain of repeated legal proceedings.
Repealing Prohibition: The 21st Amendment's Historic Reversal
You may want to see also
Acquittal and retrial
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution contains the "double jeopardy" clause, which prohibits a defendant from being tried twice for the same offence. This clause is designed to protect individuals from the hazards of multiple trials and possible conviction for the same alleged offence.
The term "acquittal" refers to a formal decision by a judge or jury that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An acquittal is the legal consequence of this determination and results in a court order clearing the defendant of the charges. In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove the accused is guilty, and the accused is free from the charge of an offence as far as criminal law is concerned.
In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offence, even if new evidence surfaces. This is to prevent the government, with its superior resources, from wearing down the defendant and potentially securing a conviction, despite their innocence. However, an acquittal does not bar prosecution for the same offence under a statute of a different jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, a person acquitted of a state murder charge can be retried on a federal civil rights charge for the same actions.
There are some exceptions to the finality of an acquittal. For instance, in England and Wales, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows for retrials if "new and compelling evidence" comes to light after an acquittal for a serious crime. Additionally, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 permits a "tainted acquittal" to be set aside if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was obtained through violence or threats of violence to a witness or juror.
Amendments: The Constitution's Living Document
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Criminal punishment
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains the double jeopardy clause, which protects criminal defendants from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. This clause states that no person shall be "subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". The concept of double jeopardy has existed for a long time, but its development was uneven, and its meaning has varied.
The protection against double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases, and a defendant who has been acquitted or convicted may still be sued in a civil lawsuit based on the same conduct. They may also face administrative proceedings, such as the suspension or revocation of their driver's license. Additionally, double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions for lesser included offences if the defendant has already defeated the charge of the more serious offence. For example, convictions for assault and aggravated assault will result in a sentence only for aggravated assault.
Double jeopardy also does not apply in cases where multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. For example, the federal and state governments can prosecute a defendant separately for the same conduct without violating the double jeopardy rule, as they are considered separate sovereigns. Similarly, an individual can be prosecuted by both the United States and an Indian tribe for the same acts that are considered crimes in both jurisdictions.
In certain cases, civil penalties may qualify as double jeopardy if they are punitive in nature. For example, in United States v. Halper, the Supreme Court held that a civil sanction under the False Claims Act qualified as punishment because it was overwhelmingly disproportionate in compensating the government for its loss and could only be explained as a deterrent or as having a retributive purpose. However, civil asset forfeitures are generally not considered punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy, as they are remedial civil sanctions rather than punitive criminal sanctions.
The protection against double jeopardy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, which states that "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once". This provision includes the concept of 'autrefois convict', which means that no one convicted of an offence can be tried or punished a second time. However, it does not extend to 'autrefois acquit', so if a person is acquitted of a crime, they can be retried.
Amending the Constitution: A Guide to the Process
You may want to see also
Juvenile vs adult trials
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, meaning a person cannot be prosecuted more than once for the same offence. This is to protect an individual from the "hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offence".
Juvenile court and adult criminal court differ in their goals and procedures. The adult criminal justice system aims to punish crimes, whereas the juvenile court focuses on rehabilitating young offenders and helping them become law-abiding citizens. Juvenile court considers the child's family, school records, and prior history to determine the best course of action.
In adult court, the defendant faces charges via a 'complaint', while in juvenile court, a petition' is used to charge the child. Juvenile court hearings are closed to the public to ensure the child's privacy, involving only the child, their family, lawyers, and relevant personnel. Juvenile court emphasizes rehabilitation and treatment, whereas adult court focuses on punishment.
In many jurisdictions, juveniles do not have the right to a jury trial, and a judge alone determines the outcome. This results in shorter trial durations. The child is considered innocent until proven guilty, but the prosecutor only needs to convince one person of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to an entire jury in adult trials.
In adult cases, a guilty verdict is followed by sentencing to determine punishment. In juvenile cases, this is referred to as a 'disposition', which outlines appropriate measures for the child, such as treatment, therapy, or education. Juveniles may also be tried as adults for serious offences, including homicide and certain firearms offences, where they may face longer or more serious sentences.
Amending the Constitution: Founding Fathers' Vision
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fifth Amendment.
The Double Jeopardy Clause.
The clause states that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
This means that a person cannot be prosecuted more than once for the same offence. This prevents the government from prosecuting someone or punishing them multiple times for the same alleged act.
