Double Jeopardy - Research Paper Example

Double jeopardy is regarded as an abuse of process because the same person is brought to the court based on the same facts. The rule of double jeopardy has received dramatic attention in the past few areas and critics are constantly calling for upgrading the rule because of its failure as it is causing injustice in the society. A classic reason often quoted for advocating the rule of double jeopardy and is often cited in academic literature and law cases was made by Black J in the case of Green v United States (US Supreme Court 187).

The idea behind the statement which he believed is ingrained in the mind of American system of jurisprudence is that the State should not be allowed to make multiple attempts to allege a charge to convict a person for an offence, thereby subjecting him into incur unnecessary expenses, making him disgraceful in the society, and it causes the individual to suffer from embarrassment & mental turmoil. This compels him to live a life full of anxiety and insecurity, and also increases the chances of the individual to be declared guilty even though he might be innocent.

Double jeopardy is recognized as a constitutional right in several countries. The fifth amendment of constitutions of United States of America states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (AFA para. 3). . Double jeopardy is recognized as a constitutional right in several countries. The fifth amendment of constitutions of United States of America states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (AFA para. 3). In addition to that, it is also recognized in international laws.

For instance, the Article 14 (7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country” (ICCPR 14). In United Kingdom, this principle is famously known as ‘Connelly principle’ after the case of Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions as it was regarded as an abuse of process.

Lord Pearce in this case stated that a man should not be tried for a second offence which is clearly inconsistent on the facts with either a previous conviction or acquittal. The court should apply judicial discretion under such circumstances as without such a process, injustice will prevail (Johns 3). In Australia, the High Court’s decision regarding R v Carroll triggered a reform about the rules of double jeopardy (Johns 7). The case was concerned with a murder of an infant girl named Deidre Kennedy in 1973, for which Raymond Carroll was prosecuted for the case by the court.

The girl was strangled in Queensland and her body was found with bruises on left thigh which were identified by medical experts as marks of human teeth. Carroll defended himself by swearing an oath and claiming that at the time of murder he was attending a course at RAAF base in South Australia. The defendant