Should the doctrine of double jeopardy be retained or not in the Northern Territory? Double

You don't have to worry about a criminal committing the same crime twice, why? Because they won't be alive to even think about it!. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”, in other words, it protects American citizens from excessive or unnecessary punishments, fines, and bails. However, the death penalty is still an exception to “cruel and unusual punishments” when the punishment does not violate the standards of the Eighth Amendment. Based on the creation of death penalty in the eighth amendment, the constitution can be claimed as an inconsistently valuable but viable document in modern America. The death penalty also known as capital punishment is one that brings a lot of controversies but at the same time has been practiced throughout history in different forms and styles.

In March of 1985, Bloodsworth was sentenced to death. Through it all Bloodsworth maintained his innocence and in 1993 with the help of a new technique used to test for DNA, Bloodsworth got his chance to prove he was innocent. Bloodsworth became the first person ever to be exonerated from death row by DNA evidence. (Jain, 2001) In one

Clause number two is the Double Jeopardy Clause. This protects you from being prosecuted twice for the same crime after conviction or acquittal, or multiple punishments for the same crime. This does not count if one is a civil case and one is a criminal case. A person can be prosecuted by the state and the federal government if he/she has committed a crime in state and federal jurisdiction. Usually the federal side will concede to the state and not prosecute.

Once a long sixteen years were over for McCormick, the case reopened, McCormick was granted a new trial, the DNA testing was proved false, and a criminal court jury found McCormick not guilty of all charges for the murder of Nichols. McCormick, who was fifty-five years old at the time of the new trial, was now a free man. After the trial, McCormick stated, “I hope they get the right person and convict them. I had nothing to do with it.”

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

This essay will explore how prosecutorial misconduct causes wrongful convictions in both the United States and Australia. This essay will also argue that rehabilitation and compensation should be provided by the state. A major flaw in the criminal justice system not only in the United States but also in Australia, is the failure to set forth a plan for the people who were exonerated to be accepted back into society. The lack of a plan for rehabilitation for the exonerated poses a problem for society since some might find it easier to find a job in prison then in the real world, this process makes it immensely difficult for prisoners to get acclimated back into society. The Australian Law Review Committee is an entity which evaluates and gives

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

The center of a circle can never be located with only one line running through the shape. There must be multiple lines, each one making it more clear where the center of the circle is. Analogously, the murderer of a case can never be indicted with only one piece of evidence pointing at them. There must be multiples indications, each one making it more clear who the murderer is. When Oreste Fulminante confessed to the first-degree murder of his stepdaughter, Jeneane Fulminante, the trial court used his confession as evidence to sentence him to death. However, since his confession was “coerced”, the Supreme Court decided to retry Fulminante’s case without the use of the “coerced” confession as evidence. Arizona v. Fulminante manifests

The Defence and Prosecution present arguments before impartial judges who decide on a verdict based on the strongest case in law. A jury may be summoned under the Juries Act 1927 (SA), and analyse the facts presented by both attorneys to determine a verdict by either a unanimous or a majority votes of the panel. The jury system allows the judicial arm to reflect the values of the broader community. An impartial and compassionate judiciary can address the needs of minorities by looking after disadvantaged in the community through legal aid (which provides advice to those who cannot afford it) or Nunga Courts (which enable Indigenous Australians to be tried according to culturally sensitive

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

False confessions have been a leading factor in destroying the lives of many innocent people. Since the advances of technology, victims of false confessions have been exonerated from the charges previously placed on them while others are still fighting for innocence or died a criminal. One technological advance that has exonerated many individuals is DNA testing. According to Randy James, DNA testing was discovered in 1985 and was first used in court to convict Tommie Lee Andrews (Time, 2009). Today many Americans are convicted because of false confessions that have not yet been overturned with new evidence (Kassin, 2014). Although DNA testing has led to freedom for many innocent Americans, there are still many innocent people who are locked

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

He determined that the foreman's report was not a final resolution. The jury’s instructions left the jury free to reconsider its vote on the capital and first-degree murder. This caused the jury’s decision not to be final. Blueford argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents Arkansas from retrying him on capital and first-degree murder charges. Arkansas counters that it is permitted to retry Blueford because the jury in his trial ultimately deadlocked, so they never reached an official verdict on any of the charges.Chief Justice Roberts stated that the trial court’s declaration was a mistrial, and rejecting Blueford’s argument was not a necessity to declare a mistrial. He then accepted that a second trial on manslaughter and negligent homicide would not pose a double jeopardy

At the retrial, Green was tried again for first degree murder under the indictment. At the beginning of the trial, he raised the defense of former jeopardy, but the court overruled his plea. He was found guilty and was sentenced to a mandatory death sentence. At this trial, Green was tried again for first degree murder even though the original jury had found him guilty of second degree murder. The second trial for first degree murder placed Green in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause.

In 1987 in Texas, a prosecutor was faced with this dilemma. Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his wife based on circumstantial evidence. Morton’s defense attorney was never told about, or given access to, the police report in which Morton’s three year old son had told police that his daddy had not killed his mommy. After serving 25 years for murdering his wife, Morton was exonerated after attorneys were finally given access to the police report and DNA testing of a bloody bandana found at the scene of the murder matched a man who was serving a sentence for the murder of another woman.