h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think you are wrong about double jeapoardy. Although I can't stand "tough" posturing from politicians either, there is a very, very good reason for removing this antiquated law. It allows people to get away with murder.

Example: A person is put on trial for murder. The trial is carried out, there is insufficient evidence. The person is acquitted.

Ten years later, conclusive evidence of the defendents guilt is uncovered. But the defendant cannot be tried again because of the law as it stands, so he or she has got away with murder and there's nothing the law can do about it. I can't imagine how that would feel to relatives and friends of the victim.

If the state and the police are going to abuse a change in the law to "stitch people up" then there are ways of dealing with them, but this silly law needs to be changed. Even if that means agreeing with David Blunkett.

If there isn't convincing evidence that a defendant is guilty, then that defendant shouldn't be on trial in the first place. And although I'd certainly like to think that there are effective ways of dealing with the abuse of state and police power, there have been too many wrongful convictions in high-profile cases for me to be able to believe that.

I stand by what I said. It's possible for a trial to go ahead without *all* the evidence being known. I can't stand the idea of proof of a crime emerging after a trial and the perpetrator being able to get away with it.

Wrongful convictions are largely secured thanks to stupid jury's and agenda-driven police. However, these can be overturned, so they do have a second-chance.

Can you think of one case in which conclusive proof of a person's guilt of a serious crime has emerged after they've been acquitted? I can't, and I'm sure it would have been big news.

No, but it certainly could happen, and that's reason enough for me.

Fair enough. There's no denying that your getting-away-with-murder scenario could theoretically happen. But I see the abolition of the double jeopardy rule as being of a piece with a whole range of things Blunkett has done recently that erode our civil liberties. He seems to have decided that he's willing to risk imprisoning more innocent people if that's the price that must be paid for imprisoning more guilty people. I just don't agree that that price is worth paying, and I certainly think that his recent and proposed changes to the law are wide open to abuse.

I find myself torn over both the issue of double jeopardy and the admission of previous convictions as evidence in court.

My teenage daughter who was indecently assaulted earlier this year, is soon to give evidence in court and I happen to know that her assailant has been convicted in the past for a similar offence. Needless to say, I should like to see her assailant convicted...

Very sorry to hear about that, Gwennie. Obviously, if you're sure about who did it, then I hope he's safely locked away. Hopefully there shouldn't be any need to bring his past offences into the trial, until it comes to the sentencing.

Thanks for your sympathies Ormy.

There's no doubt regarding the assailant's identity as the following week, he committed a similar offence on another teenage girl who has also identified him. But as you say, I hope that he's found guilty and his sentence takes into account his past convictions although I'm not sure what form punishment would take as the assailant is himself is only a minor.

Surely one of the things that started off the current talk about double jeopardy was a man being acquitted of a crime, then being found guilty of perjury committed at his own trial? That may not count as conclusive proof he was guilty, but I think a retrial should be possible under those circumstances. However, I think I agree with Ormy about the actual law that's going through.