Double Jeopardy
Do You Want People Who Have Committed Crimes To Roam the Streets of Our Free Society?
Double Jeopardy Takes the Safety and Security that Our Government Promises Us Away.
By allowing the double jeopardy rule, we are allowing, in some cases, people to "get away with it," as in, whatever they had done. You could argue that not all cases this happens, as a lot are innocent, but even if a few people were free after they had mass-murdered, then a lot of lives would be at stake. The reason that (most of us) follow the law is because of our respect for it. Otherwise we wouldn't watch the speed limits and things like that. But when convicts get off on a noticeable technicality, evading the punishments, it definitely shakes our confidence of the law, and puts more people to the impression that they can get away with their crimes. When a trial is over, it is based on the evidence that is available at the time of the crime. New evidence can always arise. If that new evidence allows for the person who got off to be proven guilty, then they should have to face up to the crime. If new evidence arises and it turns out one is guilty, then justice was not served during the original trial. © All rights reserved I think that even though print ad is not the best subject to use for a topic like double jeopardy, I can still make something out of it because I feel that most of the genres don’t really fit my topic. I think that a print ad will get some message out to people if they can be convinced that double jeopardy is bad. Truthfully, I agree with double jeopardy, but I was curious to feel what it is like to be on the other side. For sources, I used http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-we-do-away-with-the-double-jeopardy-rule?verified=false and
Double Jeopardy Takes the Safety and Security that Our Government Promises Us Away.
By allowing the double jeopardy rule, we are allowing, in some cases, people to "get away with it," as in, whatever they had done. You could argue that not all cases this happens, as a lot are innocent, but even if a few people were free after they had mass-murdered, then a lot of lives would be at stake. The reason that (most of us) follow the law is because of our respect for it. Otherwise we wouldn't watch the speed limits and things like that. But when convicts get off on a noticeable technicality, evading the punishments, it definitely shakes our confidence of the law, and puts more people to the impression that they can get away with their crimes. When a trial is over, it is based on the evidence that is available at the time of the crime. New evidence can always arise. If that new evidence allows for the person who got off to be proven guilty, then they should have to face up to the crime. If new evidence arises and it turns out one is guilty, then justice was not served during the original trial. © All rights reserved I think that even though print ad is not the best subject to use for a topic like double jeopardy, I can still make something out of it because I feel that most of the genres don’t really fit my topic. I think that a print ad will get some message out to people if they can be convinced that double jeopardy is bad. Truthfully, I agree with double jeopardy, but I was curious to feel what it is like to be on the other side. For sources, I used http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-we-do-away-with-the-double-jeopardy-rule?verified=false and