The Rule Against Double Jeopardy In Common Law

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part, that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, once a defendant is placed in jeopardy for an offense, and jeopardy terminates with respect to that offense, the defendant may neither be tried nor punished criminally a second time for the same offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause differs from procedural guarantees in that its practical result is to prevent a trial from taking place at all rather than to prescribe procedural rules that govern the conduct of a trial. The Double Jeopardy Clause also affords a criminal defendant a valued right to have his or her trial completed by a particular tribunal, although that right is not absolute. The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him or her to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him or her to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he or she may be found guilty.This article contains five parts as follows:Partâ… Basic Concept Of the Rule Against Double Jeopardy.The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part, that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb The guaranty actually consists of three separate constitutional protections: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. Nevertheless, the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy. The "twice put in jeopardy" language relates to the risk that a person accused a second time of the same offense for which he or she was initially tried will be convicted. The double jeopardy clause is a prohibit rule,a rights rule and a criminal procedure rule.Partâ…¡The History and Development of the Double Jeopardy Rule.The double jeopardy rule of the more mature half a century ago began to surface. Year 6 Justinian the "doctrine codification" first established in English common law, and in the second half of the 17th century English common law had been extraordinarily developed. The United States prohibits the establishment of the rules of double jeopardy began from Massachusetts Bay Colony. Massachusetts'constitution "freedom Manifesto," wrote double jeopardy rules down long before the United Kingdom did it. In modern society, the double jeopardy rules had gained many reasonable doubts. Ancient people in the community that the double jeopardy rules had been established by the social infrastructure in a modern society has disappeared. However, the concept of double jeopardy as a pure criminal concept, the main significance is as the means of protection of the citizen and the state contend. Even in the case of lesser crimes it can also be applied. Finally the article in Contemporary American double jeopardy rules and limit the scope of application of the law. Relief is a very limited right of appeal and prosecution procedures.Partâ…¢The Value of the Rule Against Double Jeopardy.Mainly from its legal value, the perspective of social values and human rights elaborate. The main value of double jeopardy rule embodied in the risk of mistaken conviction, reduce the pain of the trial process, the need of finality and encourage effective investigation and prosecution.The double jeopardy rule embodied in the social values of social justice and fairness and efficiency of the basic ethical values. Universal human rights advocates in the world today under the theme of double jeopardy rule prohibit countries in the world have been widely recognized.The double jeopardy rule focuses on the relationship between citizens and the state. They embody a number of ethical and legal standards of modern politics. It expressed the citizens of the state power and the bottom line of the main concept of the ideal value, focusing on civil liberties. The rule keeps the state and the respective rights and responsibilities of citizens, in order to emphasize the compassionate sentence cautious of punishment, people-oriented and caring people's thinking.Partâ…£The Historical Controversy of the Rule Against Double Jeopardy.On the attachment of jeopardy theory, a re-definition of risk is a very prominent and complicated issue. According to the existing case law, in the absence of the jury trial, the first seat at the witness oath, or when the court hearing began, and that the risk of attachment with the defendant; In a jury trial, When the jury had been chosen and sworn, the jeopardy attaches; trial in juvenile criminal cases, when the court hearing started the jeopardy attaches. Res Judicata and the double jeopardy, res judicata stressed that the decision is legally binding and the ban on double jeopardy rule emphasizes the protection of the rights of people being prosecuted. The article also introduced the common law and civil law countries'defination of "the same offense".The double jeopardy rule is relative, that is, there are exceptions, in the view of the common law and civil law exceptions to the statutory conditions can be summarized as follows : First, new evidence; Second, the fundamental flaws in procedures.Partâ…¤The Concept Consisting of Chinese Legal Idea and the Rule Against Double Jeopardy. Chinese traditional culture is compatible with the concept of human rights, Therefore, the introduction of the rules is feasible. However, our history contains more than 2,000 years of feudal society. Although the cultural traditions contains some element of human rights, these elements were not integrated. Our traditional society did not set up to protect human rights in the political and legal system. through the latest developments and future direction of the rule against double jeopardy, in light of Chinese actual conditions and, absorbing its reasonable draw, correctly coordinating the interests and values of criminal justice, establishing of an effective system of rules are reasonable ways to reform our retrial system.