Modifying Double Jeopardy

New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2012

31 Pages Posted: 14 Dec 2012 Last revised: 30 Sep 2013

Date Written: July 1, 2011

Abstract

The question raised concerns the philosophical basis of that part of the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy which forbids the state from retrying criminal defendants for the same crimes of which they have earlier been acquitted. A procedure for permitting the retrial of such defendants is developed and defended. This procedure would allow acquittals to be quashed if state officials can convince a court that they have fresh, reliable, and compelling evidence of a person’s guilt. The stock arguments in favor of a ban on double jeopardy are considered in light of this proposal and shown to be unpersuasive. A variety of other arguments against the proposal are likewise shown to be unconvincing. Particular attention is paid to the concern that the procedure might produce convictions of innocent people. This possibility is shown to be remote and thus not a reasonable ground for refusing to attempt to correct substantively mistaken acquittals.

Keywords: criminal procedure, double jeopardy, legal error

Suggested Citation

Lippke, Richard, Modifying Double Jeopardy (July 1, 2011). New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2189198

Richard Lippke (Contact Author)

Indiana University ( email )

Department of Criminal Justice
Bloomington, IN
United States
812-856-6049 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
35
Abstract Views
236
PlumX Metrics