Concept of Double Jeopardy - Essay Example

All states embrace the concept of double jeopardy in their constitutions and statutes. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) saw the Supreme Court mandate that all federal and state prosecutions must take into consideration the federal double jeopardy clause. As a result, all citizens despite the different constitutions followed by the state they reside receive the same amount of protection against the federal double jeopardy clause (Thomas, 1998).

To internalize the concept of double jeopardy, courts must first identify the legal proceedings that necessitate double jeopardy protection. As per The Fifth Amendment, cases that threatened the life or limb of an offender otherwise referred to as capital crimes or corporal punishments qualified for double jeopardy protection. The US Supreme Court modified this to include juvenile delinquency, felonies, and misdemeanors. Double jeopardy protection only applies to criminal legal proceedings, which are punitive and serve to bring retribution and deterrence from criminal behavior. Conversely, it does not apply to civil proceedings, which are remedial and directed toward compensating those afflicted by the offender. However, an offender can face both civil and criminal legal suits for the same offense without disregarding the double jeopardy clause (Hessick & Hessick, 2011).

Finally, courts have no choice but to identify the point at which jeopardy attaches and terminates. Jeopardy attaches differently in various cases. In cases tried by a panel of jurors, jeopardy attaches when impaneled; whereas in cases tried solely by judges, it attaches after the swearing-in of the first witness. Juvenile delinquency adjudications prove complex whereby, jeopardy attaches after the presentation of the first evidence in the absence of a plea; however, it attaches after the acceptance of a plea taken by a juvenile offender before the commencement of proceedings. On the other hand, jeopardy terminates in the following instances after a dismissal, mistrial, acquittal, and on appeal after conviction (Thomas, 1998).

However, the dual-sovereignty doctrine provides for different states to try an offender for the same crime in two separate trials without contravening the double jeopardy clause. In United States v. Koon, 833 (1994), the federal court allowed for the conviction of two Los Angeles police for violating Rodney King’s civil when they brutally attacked him despite the state court’s previous acquittal. As discussed in the earlier paragraph, acquittals facilitate jeopardy’s termination ensuring that further proceedings grounded on the previous case contravene the double jeopardy clause. The dual-sovereignty doctrine’s design respects the need for different states and the federal government to preserve peace by allowing the prosecutorial team to convict an offender despite previous rulings by other states. In Health v. Alabama, 474 U.S. (1985), convictions made by both the prosecutorial teams of Alabama and Georgia states remained after the Supreme Court’s ruling, which advanced that the defendant’s actions of committing murder in Alabama and transporting the body to Georgia necessitated both states to take legal action without contravening the double jeopardy clause. For dual sovereignty to work, successive prosecutions remain prohibited within the different sub-divisions of a state (Hessick & Hessick, 2011).

Moreover, in some cases, a federal and state trial held against an offender does not contravene the double jeopardy clause. In Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. (1960), the Supreme Court approved rulings issued by different district federal courts against an individual for the same offense. The “Petite policy” mandates that federal prosecutors must seek prior consent from the assistant attorney before pursuing a second prosecution against an offender on similar charges. However, this does not provide defendants with a way out in the event federal prosecutors failed to seek approval from the assistant attorney (Thomas, 1998).

In conclusion, the double jeopardy clause functions to safeguard the rights of offenders from constant harassment from prosecutors over their past offenses that warrant criminal legal proceedings. Courts have no choice but to identify legal proceedings qualifying for double jeopardy protection and the points where jeopardy attaches and terminates. However, it is evident that some peculiar circumstances such as the dual-sovereignty doctrine and the “Petite policy” allow for the prosecution of offenders by more than one state or by the federal government for similar offenses (Thomas, 1998).