criminal justice system which under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” (Balko, 2011) This safeguard, also known as ‘double jeopardy’ according to popular belief deters the Courts from retrying the same person over and over for the same crime, until s/he gets a conviction. However, there remain exceptions to this law which are used by prosecutors to their own advantage.
The first being that this law can be used by the defendant only if his case, in the process of its trial, has received a clear conviction or acquittal, in the case of a mistrial or hung jury, the prosecution can press for the same charges again. Also, a ruling by the Supreme Court states that without infringing on the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, a person can be charged with a crime and the conspiracy to commit that crime, thus, opening doors to a double conviction on essentially the same offense.
Finally, the double jeopardy law holds no ground in the face of ‘separate sovereignty’ which concedes to the sentencing of the same individual to the same crime, tried separately in the state and federal courts.
Another myth which is popularly circulated is that of frivolous lawsuits. The assumption here is that out of the tort cases filed under the US judicial system, many are cases which cannot have a legal standing according to the legal precedents of the federal and the state legal system. As of this myth many of the tort cases are causing huge administrative burden on the state. It has been argued that these cases are being piled in the courts and are causing delays in the processing of other cases. Moreover, it is argued that these cases are causing large burden on the taxpayers in terms of the cost that these cases incur on the state. There are arguments favouring this myth that, tort system is affecting the industry in terms of the job losses that