Acquitted Murder Suspect Confesses (Nothing can be done)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

Double jepardy= criminal A X Victim A= criminal acquitted. Then case of A X A was brought up again.

Not double jeopardy= criminal A X victim B

That's what I mean. Otherwise they wouldn't list names in cases.

gamingqueen

Depending, only acquitted charges can not be taken to court again. The same goes for civil lawsuits for those who are interested.

I sued LJ for stealing my console. GQ versus LJ for the case of console robbery. If both parties are the same and charge is similar and demands are similar than the case cannot be brought up in courts.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

gamingqueen killed LJbasic and was aquitted for LJbasic's case. gamingqueen killed worlock also but that doesn't mean worlock doesn't have the right to sue gamingqueen even if gamingqueen killed them both in one place and one time.

LJS9502_basic

True but there could be differences in the way each one was killed so they look for the reason each victim was killed seperatly.

The american law system is perfect, this clearly did not happen. The guilty are punished, innocent are let free. This guy is innocent and so free.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

gamingqueen killed LJbasic and was aquitted for LJbasic's case. gamingqueen killed worlock also but that doesn't mean worlock doesn't have the right to sue gamingqueen even if gamingqueen killed them both in one place and one time.

gamingqueen

True but there could be differences in the way each one was killed so they look for the reason each victim was killed seperatly.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If there were multiple victims then they generally try the case together and have multiple charges. It's possible to get some charges as guilty and some as not guilty. But considering it's a specific act...it's one trial.LJS9502_basic

Depending, only acquitted charges can not be taken to court again. The same goes for civil lawsuits for those who are interested.

I sued LJ for stealing my console. GQ versus LJ for the case of console robbery. If both parties are the same and charge is similar and demands are similar than the case cannot be brought up in courts.

It's the same concept. Same people, demands in civil =charges in criminal and action= case.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's two different actions.....now if gamingqueen was drunk driving and hit a car with the two users....thanks for that by the way....and killed them....she would be charged with two counts homicide for driving under the influence. But one trial since it was one action.LJS9502_basic

True but there could be differences in the way each one was killed so they look for the reason each victim was killed seperatly.

That's what I'm saying. Multiple charges not a single charge.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

Depending, only acquitted charges can not be taken to court again. The same goes for civil lawsuits for those who are interested.

I sued LJ for stealing my console. GQ versus LJ for the case of console robbery. If both parties are the same and charge is similar and demands are similar than the case cannot be brought up in courts.

gamingqueen

It's the same concept. Same people, demands in civil =charges in criminal and action= case.

No, no, no, no. The people do not demand what charges are brought against whom, and proceedings in civil court have no bearing on criminal court.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

Depending, only acquitted charges can not be taken to court again. The same goes for civil lawsuits for those who are interested.

I sued LJ for stealing my console. GQ versus LJ for the case of console robbery. If both parties are the same and charge is similar and demands are similar than the case cannot be brought up in courts.

gamingqueen

It's the same concept. Same people, demands in civil =charges in criminal and action= case.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You're confusing civil with criminal I think. One can certainly bring civil charges whether or not a criminal case was prosecuted and it doesn't matter on the outcome of the case. You can't retry a criminal case though when it's been adjudicated.

worlock77

It's the same concept. Same people, demands in civil =charges in criminal and action= case.

No, no, no, no. The people do not demand what charges are brought against whom, and proceedings in civil court have no bearing on criminal court.

They don't. Legaslators are the ones who put terms for the offences as "murder' or "man slaughter". I'm just saying if one was charged with murder and the same person was charged for the same murder which naturally means by the same people then he can't be sued. I've been saying this all along. Same harm+same people+ same demands= civil. Murder( same victim) +offender=criminal.

They don't. Legaslators are the ones who put terms for the offences as "murder' or "man slaughter". I'm just saying if one was charged with murder and the same person was charged for the same murder which naturally means by the same people then he can't be sued. I've been saying this all along. Same harm+same people+ same demands= civil. Murder( same victim) +offender=criminal.

gamingqueen

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You're confusing civil with criminal I think. One can certainly bring civil charges whether or not a criminal case was prosecuted and it doesn't matter on the outcome of the case. You can't retry a criminal case though when it's been adjudicated.

LJS9502_basic

It's the same concept. Same people, demands in civil =charges in criminal and action= case.

Yes but if he wants to sue the same person over the same thing and demanded the same thing and the court has already ruled in that case then he can't. Unless a different person sues for him or he asks for new demands or the harm was caused in a different way than in the first case.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

They don't. Legaslators are the ones who put terms for the offences as "murder' or "man slaughter". I'm just saying if one was charged with murder and the same person was charged for the same murder which naturally means by the same people then he can't be sued. I've been saying this all along. Same harm+same people+ same demands= civil. Murder( same victim) +offender=criminal.

LJS9502_basic

Okay I was wrong to bring up something which I thought is the equivalent of double jeopardy in civil lawsuits. :P I'm sorry. And you don't have that in common law, you have legal precedents.

Hmm... does anyone know why they were unable to convict him originally? What were the details of the murder, how it was alleged to have taken place and why he was the prime suspect? It seems to me that if the only credible witness testimony comes from the accused, the evidence on him is weak to say the least. A civil action based primarily upon his testimony would be suspect. I would want independant evidence despite the confession. We know nothing about his state of mind now, at the time of the murder, nor his motivation to confess now.

No legal system is perfect. I think to let a murderer occasionally go free is better than imprisoning and in some cases executing innocent people.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

It's the same concept. Same people, demands in civil =charges in criminal and action= case.

gamingqueen

Yes but if he wants to sue the same person over the same thing and demanded the same thing and the court has already ruled in that case then he can't. Unless a different person sues for him or he asks for new demands or the harm was caused in a different way than in the first case.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's not the same thing. Person A gets drunk and drives. He can be charged for that action. Everything that occurs from that one incident will be tried at the same trail and he may face multiple charges. If Person A was drunk driving on another night....that would be a separate action for which he would be tried in a different trial. Civil and criminal are two different legal remedies. Person A could be sued for what his actions did while under the influence by interested parties. IE someone with legal standing in the case. The Civil trial can proceed whether Person A was brought to trial....and whether he was convicted or acquitted. Double jeopardy only applies to be charged criminally by the government. Having a criminal and civil case brought is not double jeopardy.LJS9502_basic

Yes but if he wants to sue the same person over the same thing and demanded the same thing and the court has already ruled in that case then he can't. Unless a different person sues for him or he asks for new demands or the harm was caused in a different way than in the first case.

A good lawyer can prove that the party has an interest in the case ;) a bad lawyer would just walk away and say there's no way out for you.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

Yes but if he wants to sue the same person over the same thing and demanded the same thing and the court has already ruled in that case then he can't. Unless a different person sues for him or he asks for new demands or the harm was caused in a different way than in the first case.

gamingqueen

A good lawyer can prove that the party has an interest in the case ;) a bad lawyer would just walk away and say there's no way out for you.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] In regard to civil lawsuits.....you have to be an interested party....so random people cannot sue for you.LJS9502_basic

A good lawyer can prove that the party has an interest in the case ;) a bad lawyer would just walk away and say there's no way out for you.

I can prove so. Cases are not black and white LJ hence lawyers ask for details. Any detail could helo you win a case.

You know these arguments? How you go look in wiki and stuff to back up your arguments and not just take something as it is? The same applies to law work. Only lazy or lawyers with connections read texts and tell someome they're going to lose or win a case.

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]This is why the justice system sucks. :| He probably only confessed because it was eating his conscious alive and he knew he'd get away with it anyway. >_>GreySeal9

I disagree with that. I don't think incidents like this indicate that the justice system sucks. I think it indicates that life isn't perfect and things like this are going to happen.

I mean, do you have any remedy for incidents like this?

Yes. It's called put him in prison. He confessed AFTER he was aquitted. That means the investigation was over and he was no longer accused, therefore his confession wasn't coerced in any way. He did it. He knows he did it. The authorities know he did it. Everyone knows he did it. He confessed to the crime so he needs to be locked up.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

A good lawyer can prove that the party has an interest in the case ;) a bad lawyer would just walk away and say there's no way out for you.

gamingqueen

I can prove so. Cases are not black and white LJ hence lawyers ask for details. Any detail could helo you win a case.

You know these arguments? How you go look in wiki and stuff to back up your arguments and not just take something as it is? The same applies to law work. Only lazy or lawyers with connections read texts and tell someome they're going to lose or win a case.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]This is why the justice system sucks. :| He probably only confessed because it was eating his conscious alive and he knew he'd get away with it anyway. >_>The-Apostle

I disagree with that. I don't think incidents like this indicate that the justice system sucks. I think it indicates that life isn't perfect and things like this are going to happen.

I mean, do you have any remedy for incidents like this?

Yes. It's called put him in prison. He confessed AFTER he was aquitted. That means the investigation was over and he was no longer accused, therefore his confession wasn't coerced in any way. He did it. He knows he did it. The authorities know he did it. Everyone knows he did it. He confessed to the crime so he needs to be locked up.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]This is why the justice system sucks. :| He probably only confessed because it was eating his conscious alive and he knew he'd get away with it anyway. >_>The-Apostle

I disagree with that. I don't think incidents like this indicate that the justice system sucks. I think it indicates that life isn't perfect and things like this are going to happen.

I mean, do you have any remedy for incidents like this?

Yes. It's called put him in prison. He confessed AFTER he was aquitted. That means the investigation was over and he was no longer accused, therefore his confession wasn't coerced in any way. He did it. He knows he did it. The authorities know he did it. Everyone knows he did it. He confessed to the crime so he needs to be locked up.

It's not that simple.

If our system worked that way, it would create negative precedents.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we decided to throw double jeapordy out the window to retry this guy and send him to prison post-confession. This would open the door to keep trying to retry acquited persons based on every piece of new evidence that comes in. After all, a confession, especially if given as a witness, is evidence.

And if you simply locked him up without a retrial, that would be even worse and it completely undermine our system and our notion of rights, which has to have some amount of consistency to function.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that individual cases function in a vacuum. But that's not true: there is such thing as legal precedent.

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I disagree with that. I don't think incidents like this indicate that the justice system sucks. I think it indicates that life isn't perfect and things like this are going to happen.

I mean, do you have any remedy for incidents like this?

GreySeal9

Yes. It's called put him in prison. He confessed AFTER he was aquitted. That means the investigation was over and he was no longer accused, therefore his confession wasn't coerced in any way. He did it. He knows he did it. The authorities know he did it. Everyone knows he did it. He confessed to the crime so he needs to be locked up.

It's not that simple.

If our system worked that way, it would create negative precedents.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we decided to throw double jeapordy out the window to retry this guy and send him to prison post-confession. This would open the door to keep trying to retry acquited persons based on every piece of new evidence that comes in. After all, a confession, if given as a witness, is evidence.

And if you simply locked him up without a retrial, that would be even worse and it completely undermine our system and our notion of rights, which has to have some amount of consistency to function.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that individual cases function in a vacuum. But that's not true: there is such thing as legal precedent.

Confession is considered an evidence unless the person was forced to admit that he did it. So having a confession by the person himself is the same as a new evidence being brought up. Do they bring back cases when a new evidence is available? One which could change the ruling? Or one can't do it after being acquitted no matter what?

@LJ: in the same case no. In a new case yes. The same people can't take it back to the same court unless they change the demands or express that a harm was caused in a different way than in the first time.

Confession is considered an evidence unless the person was forced to admit that he did it.gamingqueen

If it was a forced confession, I would think the evidence would be considered inadmissible.

But in any case, a forced confession is all the more reason to discount the "just lock him up" mentality.

So having a confession by the person himself is the same as a new evidence being brought up. Do they bring back cases when a new evidence is available? One which could change the ruling? Or one can't do it after being acquitted no matter what?gamingqueen

Double jeapordy says that despite any new evidence, the same case can't be brought against an acquitted person.

@LJ: in the same case no. In a new case yes. The same people can't take it back to the same court unless they change the demands or express that a harm was caused in a different way than in the first time.

gamingqueen

:|

the justice system strikes again

Sword-Demon

[QUOTE="Sword-Demon"]

:|

the justice system strikes again

DroidPhysX

Pretty much. People don't realize the kind of horrible precedents that parts of our legal system like double jeopardy protect against.

Some people were even talking about redifining reasonable doubt because Casey Anthony got off.

Why can't you just allow a an exemption to the double jeopardy scenario that states you can retry if:

1. There is a uncoerced confession of sound mind

or

2. There is new hard evidence

2 prevents there from being silly accusations for a retrial, there has to be physical evidence, and 1 basically just states that if someone admits later that they did the crime, then they can be retried. I don't see how either of these situations would be unjust.

Why can't you just allow a an exemption to the double jeopardy scenario that states you can retry if:

1. There is a uncoerced confession of sound mind

or

2. There is new hard evidence

2 prevents there from being silly accusations for a retrial, there has to be physical evidence, and 1 basically just states that if someone admits later that they did the crime, then they can be retried. I don't see how either of these situations would be unjust.

cgi15

Because it would be taken advantage of.

The makers of the double jeopardy law knew much more about law than you and me.If it was possible to get rid of it and not have problems, it would've been done already.

Why can't you just allow a an exemption to the double jeopardy scenario that states you can retry if:

1. There is a uncoerced confession of sound mind

or

2. There is new hard evidence

2 prevents there from being silly accusations for a retrial, there has to be physical evidence, and 1 basically just states that if someone admits later that they did the crime, then they can be retried. I don't see how either of these situations would be unjust.

cgi15

Just putting it out there, but it seems like things would work better if double jeopardy applied, except where the aquitted person confesses.

Voila?