Post 1 for Tri 2 - due 12/14
The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." However as PBS explains, "there is a 170-year-old exception to the double jeopardy clause known as the separate sovereign exception. That is, if two sovereign states — and the United States, they are allowed to do the double prosecution or two states, which are also separate sovereigns, they could do it as well."
Listen to or read the following story from National Public Radio and the one cited abouve from PBS about the Supreme Court's current case on the issue of Double Jeopardy. The article summarizes the case before the Supreme Court and its potential implications on the Mueller investigation of the president.
Pretend you are on the US Supreme Court:
Should the federal and state courts have the power to prosecute someone for the same crime even though they broke the law in multiple jurisdictions?
In your answer you need to reference the Constitution and at least one news article in your answer.
Your post is due by Friday, December 14th.
Labels: civil liberties, double jeopardy, Supreme Court
posted by Ms. Aby @ 1:15 PM
17 Comments:
I believe that federal and state courts should not have the power to prosecute each in their own jurisdiction. In the 5th amendment of the Constitution it states, "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy..." I believe that the Founding Fathers did not intend for a punishment to be levied against a person for the same crime twice. For example, if someone was found innocent in a state court yet guilty in a federal court, the federal court would punish much harsher than the state court for a someone who may or may not be innocent (1). Both state and federal government should combine their case into one for each of the laws the person has broken no matter whose jurisdiction it fell under. There shouldn't be multiple chances to find someone guilty of one charge even if it falls under multiple jurisdictions.
(1): https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/its-time-close-loophole-constitutions-double-jeopardy-rule
In my opinion, I do not believe that any level of government should be able to try and prosecute someone for an already established case in law. In the recent case of Gamble v United States, there have been many questions on if voting in favor of Gamble would be damaging, as according to the U.S federal government, "overturning the dual-sovereignty doctrine would upend the country’s federalist system." Obviously, this would be very tragic for our own liberties as it would take away a right given in the 5th amendment, which states that nobody will "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Many people have seen the importance of this case, which is why according to the Atlantic (1), S.C Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg states how the separate sovereign theory makes the defendant, "face successive prosecutions by the whole USA." This opinion by Ginsburg can show how even if the charges are coming from different levels of govt, they're still involving the U.S in the same charge, so it shouldn't be protected due to the 5th amendment. All in all, the Separate Sovereign rule does not justify the use of double jeopardy to hurt U.S citizens.
(1): https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/gamble-v-united-states-case-double-jeopardy/577342/
If I was on the US Supreme Court, I believe that the federal and state do have the power to prosecute someone for the same crime because they broke the law in different ways. The double jeopardy statute stands if a state or federal prosecutes twice, but if both prosecutes it is an exception. The prosecuting interests are different between the federal and state governments because a person could be smuggling narcotics and could also be prosecuted for the x amount of money they are making by doing that. In the fifth amendment of the Constitution, in summary, it states for a person to not be doubled prosecuted. That law is very broad, and it leaves the Supreme Court to interpret the law in however which way they want it. Therefore, the separate sovereign exception. In the article "Unequal Justice: Will the Supreme Court Change the Rules of Double Jeopardy to Benefit Trump and Manafort?", the separate sovereign exception was used in Gamble's case because he had illegal drugs and also a pistol. The state and federal dealt with different interests because the state dealt with the drugs, and the federal dealt with the gun. The article says, "Feigin contended there was no compelling reason for invalidating such an age-old policy. He also asserted that the rule was entirely consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, who saw the states and the newly minted federal government as political equals that were free to punish wrongdoing as they saw fit." The exception meant a lot in past precedents because it helped each case some shape or form. For example, the Rodney King case, at the state level the case went unpunished, but at the federal level it was a successful prosecution. That is why I believe the the federal and state governments have the power to prosecute someone for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions because of the totally different interests.
1) https://progressive.org/dispatches/double-jeopardy-SCOTUS-Gamble-181211/
If I was on the US Supreme Court, I believe that the federal and state do have the power to prosecute someone for the same crime because they broke the law in different ways. The double jeopardy statute stands if a state or federal prosecutes twice, but if both prosecutes it is an exception. The prosecuting interests are different between the federal and state governments because a person could be smuggling narcotics and could also be prosecuted for the x amount of money they are making by doing that. In the fifth amendment of the Constitution, in summary, it states for a person to not be doubled prosecuted. That law is very broad, and it leaves the Supreme Court to interpret the law in however which way they want it. Therefore, the separate sovereign exception. In the article "Unequal Justice: Will the Supreme Court Change the Rules of Double Jeopardy to Benefit Trump and Manafort?", the separate sovereign exception was used in Gamble's case because he had illegal drugs and also a pistol. The state and federal dealt with different interests because the state dealt with the drugs, and the federal dealt with the gun. The article says, "Feigin contended there was no compelling reason for invalidating such an age-old policy. He also asserted that the rule was entirely consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, who saw the states and the newly minted federal government as political equals that were free to punish wrongdoing as they saw fit." The exception meant a lot in past precedents because it helped each case some shape or form. For example, the Rodney King case, at the state level the case went unpunished, but at the federal level it was a successful prosecution. That is why I believe the the federal and state governments have the power to prosecute someone for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions because of the totally different interests.
1) https://progressive.org/dispatches/double-jeopardy-SCOTUS-Gamble-181211/
KIMEE NGUYEN
If I were to be on the Supreme Court, I believe that people should be charged for the same crime to an extent. I say to an extent due to how we should still respect the 5th Amendment. The fifth amendment states that a person can protect themselves from self-incrimination, due process, and especially double jeopardy. Since this amendment has been in the constitution since the 1790s, it's best to respect this for SOME crimes. An exception for this can be murder, sexual assault, manslaughter (Probably the same as murder), and rape. For instance, in "Dallas man arrested in murder case goes free because of double jeopardy," The article informed readers that double jeopardy saved a man who did actually kill someone. Regardless of double jeopardy, he still killed someone, and should not be released due to double jeopardy. I completely understand that the fifth amendment protects people from double jeopardy, however, murder is one of the most gruesome and cruel crime anyone can ever commit. Therefore, double jeopardy should still be on the fifth amendment, but when it comes to murder, double jeopardy should be disregarded since murder is such a heinous crime.
(1) https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2013/05/26/dallas-man-arrested-in-murder-case-goes-free-because-of-double-jeopardy
I do think the federal and state government should have the power to prosecute each in their own jurisdiction. If someone commits a mass shooting in a federal building, this person should be tried by both the state and federal government because not only did they disrupt the peace and break the law in the state but also in a federal office. According to the 5th amendment people shall not be tried twice for the same crime, but because of dual sovereignty, they aren't always same carbon copy crime. This court case is vital for President trump because it means that he could potentially give his associates the equivalent to a get out of jail free card (1). Trump would no longer be only able to pardon those charged with federal crimes but also state crimes. This would be unfair to the state government and the American people. The states could see these new pardons as a way to illigitmize the state's courts decisions but it also would show the American people that certain people in this country are above the law if Trump excessively pardons his associates.
1: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/new-court-already-preparing-to-help-trump-associates-stay-out-of-jail/
If I was on the Supreme Court, I would vote to uphold the current double jeopardy rules because even though Gamble was indicted at both the federal and state levels for the same activity, possession of a firearm as a felon, he broke two separate laws and should be punished for each of the laws that he broke (1). Additionally, federal crimes usually offer different, separate sentences, so any person tried on both levels would have to serve two sentences, showing that they are different crimes. Also, if the current policy is important to uphold a certain level of federalism in the United States. If the Court votes to get rid of the separate sovereign rule, the federal government would lose power because it would be unable to prosecute people for their federal crimes. Overall, I would vote to uphold the separate sovereign rule of double jeopardy because the federal and state crimes pertain to different laws and each trial decides a different sentencing, and getting rid of this rule would take an important power away from the federal government.
Source:
1: https://progressive.org/dispatches/double-jeopardy-SCOTUS-Gamble-181211/
If I was on the Supreme Court, I believe that the each the federal court and state court should have the power to prosecute someone for the same crime. This is because both of these courts have their own set of rules that they follow and levels that they prosecute by. As the 5th amendment states that a person is protected to be convicted with the same crime twice, the supreme court can override that. Also because of duel sovereignty. (1) Gamble was tried on two levels with separate sentences. I believe that the double jeopardy action should stay because they use their chance to proceute if that person commits a crime to a different sentence. Also, it could help to prevent a future crime.
1. https://www.kdlg.org/post/double-jeopardy-case-heard-supreme-court-could-have-implications-mueller#stream/0
I believe that the Federal and State Courts should not be able to prosecute criminals separately for the same crime. It is fair to only be tried in one court and get one penalty for the crime and not two. The double jeopardy clause stands for all the cases and technically if you get charged on both the State and Federal courts, you are being tried twice for the same crime. According to progressive.org(1) getting rid of the separate-sovereigns would bolster Trumps pardon power, making it a get out of jail free card. This would not be the worst thing in the world because I do not think Trump is going to overuse that power. Also Gamble should just serve the state sentence and not the federal sentence, because that is double jeopardy and that what his whole case in the Supreme court is about getting rid of that.
1.https://progressive.org/dispatches/double-jeopardy-SCOTUS-Gamble-181211/
The US Supreme Court has decided to uphold the separate sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is a 170 year old precedent that has worked for a very long time. No reasoning has been provided to sway the court into removing a nearly two century old precedent. The separate sovereigns exception is needed in cases such as national protection. Justice Samuel Alito reasoned that if a “group of American tourists are murdered by terrorists in a foreign country… and they are ineptly prosecuted in that country. Are you saying that they could not be prosecuted afterwards in the United States?” (1). The need to prosecute a second time is necessary to protect national security in instances like this. The constitution states that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” but each separate sovereign has different laws and interests. For example, “possession of 220 pounds of marijuana in California could be a misdemeanor, but it's a felony under federal law” (1). The federal government tends to only get involved in cases that are high profile and when it is necessary to get involved. This exception ensures that criminals who committed a terrible crime get the conviction they deserve. It works as a check to keep the president from pardoning people who committed awful crimes. Overall, the separate sovereign exception is a necessary and constitutional part of our government.
Source 1) https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/673449144/this-supreme-court-case-could-impact-the-mueller-probe-and-boost-trumps-pardon-p
If I was on the U.S. Supreme Court, I would to uphold the double jeopardy rule as one may not be prosecuted twice for the same criminal act. The 5th Amendment states, "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy." Although Gamble was indicted at the federal and state levels for the same activity, he broke two separate laws and should be punished for each of the laws he broke (1). Also, the current policy is important to uphold a certain level of federalism in the United States. For example, if the Court votes to get rid of the separate sovereign rule, the federal government would lose power. They would lose power because it wouldn't be possible to prosecute someone for the federal crimes they may commit. In conclusion, I would vote to uphold the double jeopardy rule because not only is it unfair to prosecute someone twice, but the federal government will lose their power.
(1): https://progressive.org/dispatches/double-jeopardy-SCOTUS-Gamble-181211/
A person should only be tried twice if they broke the same law in separate states and not be tried at the state level and then the federal level. According to the fifth amendment everyone has a right to be protected from double jeopardy. In the case of being tried at a state level and a federal level for the same exact crime is exactly that, double jeopardy. A person will have been through a trial twice for the same crime. If a person needs to be put through a federal level trial then just put them through that and not a state level. But if a person were to commit a crime say in Minnesota and then go on to commit that same exact crime in Iowa That person can and should be tried in both states because they broke the law in multiple jurisdictions. Each state has its own set of rules guided by the constitution and methods of dealing with people who break them. According to (1)PBS getting rid of the double jeopardy exception could possible lead to a situation where people will be tried at the federal level and then get pardon by the president leaving the states unable to prosecute, but this is this rare situation more worry some than prosecuting someone twice and not giving them access to basic rights written into the constitution?
1-https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/could-supreme-courts-double-jeopardy-case-reverse-170-years-of-precedent
I believe that a person should be able to be tried twice if they had broke a law in two separate states. The fifth amendment states that anyone is protected from double jeopardy, being tried in federal and state levels. But each court has different jurisdiction, so in that case someone could be tried under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin, and legally be tried under the jurisdiction of Ohio. Each state will have different policies with their courts based off the constitution. CNN states that that the separate sovereign exceptions say that someone can be tried in both state and federal courts because they are different jurisdictions. If the exception was striked, then there is fear that the president can pardon someone on the federal level and then state courts have no right to prosecute them.
1. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-presidential-pardon-power/index.html
I think crimes should be able to be tried twice because everybody makes mistakes. It could be good mistakes or bad mistakes. Like the prosecutors could have missed something the first time they tried the convicted person that will affect the outcome of the trial. I also think this because there are many things that can affect a decision that might not be right the first time. Whether it be opinions if it's decided by jury or whether it's a decision that's unconstitutional, there should be a way to basically redo the trial. Also they should be able to put someone on trial again to possibly reduce there sentence that they got. If a crime effect the state and federal level, then they should definitely be able to be tried more than once.
https://progressive.org/dispatches/double-jeopardy-SCOTUS-Gamble-181211/
I believe that the Federal and State Courts should be able to prosecute criminals for the same crime. What if an important item was not used or if the person was prosecuted wrongly? It would only be fair to do the trial again in my opinion. I know that the 5th amendment protects us from double jeopardy, but we should be able to do it if we have a meaningful reason. If a crime effects a system or multiple people then it should be necessary to retrial. (1) The Supreme Court justices sounded unwilling Thursday to overturn a long-standing precedent that allows a state and the federal government to prosecute a person for the same crime,despite the constitutional ban on "double jeopardy." This shows that the courts are being more easy going with the usage of double jeopardy. Times have changed so why not the rules.
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/tns-alabama-supreme-court-mueller-russia-double-jeopardy.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I believe that Federal and State Courts should be able to prosecute someone more than once for a crime, though not more than twice. While the constitution does protect us from Double Jeopardy it does not take into account cases were it is necessary. For example in cases were dangerous people were found not guilty, but then more evidence was brought to light, those cases should be reassessed. Having the loophole for the double jeopardy rule will help solve this problem since there will be more time for new evidence to come to light and won't allow federal pardons to be passed out (1). Federal Court Pardons are technically allowed and having this loophole in place will make it so that cases in regards to corruption will still be valid in another court even if they'be been pardoned in another. Also when a crime is done in multiple jurisdiction's it makes sense for them to be tried in both because of evidence found and differences in federal laws.
1: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/04/i-actually-like-new-yorks-double-jeopardy-loophole-the-way-it-is-but-we-cant-have-such-nice-things/?rf=1
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home