The Double Jeopardy Clause Of The Fifth Amendment

For centuries, cases have existed in the judicial system whereby convicted criminals have been released when new evidence surfaced, thus proving their innocence. Although individuals proven to be guilty can be released when conclusive evidence is revealed, individuals deemed non-guilty cannot be convicted when new evidence emerges. This is because of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment; the law has recognized “the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa, “no one should be tried twice for the same offense” (Prassel). Individuals who receive a legitimate acquittal are unjustly ineligible for a retrial based on the same charges. The law should work consistently to ensure judicial equality to both criminals and victims. Although
In this case, the verdict was again incorrect, however the events surrounding the case were different. The underlying philosophy of the Clause is that:
“‘The State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity’… Double jeopardy protection was thus intended to protect the individual from the tyranny and power of the government” (Melenyzer).
When the framers established this procedural clause, they intended on creating a defense for individuals who were undeniably innocent. Although double jeopardy protects individuals presumed not guilty from a retrial on the same charges, it does not account for the possibility that a guilty individual was presumed not guilty. For instance, if an individual was released upon the fact that they were not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and evidence was uncovered proving their guilt, they are not subject to a retrial because of the double jeopardy clause. This is unquestionably unjust given that this clause protects criminals from lawful imprisonment. Although the verdict may seem just at the time of the initial trial, given the evidence was inconclusive, the presence of uncovered compelling evidence should be admitted
This procedure would allow acquittals to be quashed if state officials can convince a court that they have fresh, reliable, and compelling evidence of a person’s guilt. The stock arguments in favor of a ban on double jeopardy are considered in light of this proposal” (Lippke).
If and when a prosecution fails to constitute fairness and justice to the highest degree, a retrial should occur. The presence of unambiguous evidence should be admitted to the court, whether or not it determines someone’s guilt or innocence. In order to effectively establish total judicial equality, the double jeopardy clause should be amended to ensure fairness despite the necessity to revisit the same statutory provisions as a former