The double jeopardy clause of the constitution aims at protecting an individual from the subjection of hazardous trials. It prevents a person from the possible retribution for alleged offenses for more than once. Ideally, it prompts the state and all its jurisprudence not to repeat a mistake by convicting an individual out of groundless allegations (Chacon 13). The States should, therefore, dedicate resource and manpower to ensuring aversion of such embarrassment and expenditure. It safeguards the public from the notion that they may be guilty of an offense even as they pursue their rightful course of life. Back in the day, double jeopardy development was very uneven with variable meanings. It did not build up well with the early American communities.
However, during the development of England, it became known that a defendant in a case could state former acquittal or conviction and avoid the prosecution (Doyle 5). The universal law upon which the jurisdiction acted was a subject of this rule. Following the revolution in the law society, the rule was given different meanings depending on the preferred mode of use in the prevalent conditions. Over the years, the law was elevated to become fundamental in the trials and the handling of cases in the courts. It found its way into the bill of rights and soon became known as the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendments (Kumar 21). During its inaugural representation to the representative house, Madison read that it was illegal for one person to receive conviction of the same felony twice (Rudstein 14). Nevertheless, he made an exception for the case of impeachment.
On a different opinion, the opponents claimed that a guilty person could easily construe such a rule in the second trial. In addition, the opponents of the amendment argued that the double jeopardy could be detrimental to the defendants, because the appellate court would have to reverse the conviction in the case of a no new trial (Kumar 25). As a result of these, the present statutory of the law became endorsed by the legislature. The historiography of the clause shows the extent at which it alienated the federal government. The limited nature of the law in the states instigated a procedure to ensure the application of all amendments in all the counties.
In conjunction with this, the bill of rights became incorporated in the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment (Duignan 15). The human rights constitute the basis of the state’s liberty. On the contrary, the double jeopardy was not substantially significant in the explanation of how to handle things in the court. Like other procedural rights, the absence of the clause could still validate the trials as they could still be accorded the requisite justice. On the other hand, a defendant might be convicted to some allegation in the absence of the double jeopardy clause. It can be a violation of the state’s rule of law, but that was not the case with Palko (Chacon 17). In another case of Maryland v Benton, the Court said that the prohibition of double jeopardy forms a fundamental ideology in the American constitutional heritage (Rudstein 18).
Once it becomes a part of the bill of rights, it proves to be essential in the American judicial system. On the brighter perspective, the same constitution is under the use by the federal and the state governments (Rudstein 8). As a result, the limitations of the clause of double jeopardy in the realms of individual right is experienced at both the state and the federal level. The only hard challenge to the implementation of the 5th amendment emanates from the fact that different government units prefer different modes of the evaluation of justice. They have different interests in the handling of cases that involve criminal acts and the acts of enforcing laws. Owing to this, it leads to the case of an overlapped jurisdiction that creates a barrier that hinders the right application of the double jeopardy clause (Duignan 23). Mainly, the perpetrators of the alleged crimes might have been involved in crimes that transcend across several of the government units.
The court suppressed all acts of convicting the same criminal by two government units. In fact, when two different administration entities serve under a similar rule of law, double jeopardy prohibits them from pressing two lawsuits against a person for the same offense (Kumar 28). As a consequence of this, the dual sovereign nature of some cases allowed some countries to conduct similar trials for the same case under consideration. The double jeopardy clause protects the indictment of a party charged with a known crime whether by statute or in the common law (Rudstein 31). Out of the ordinary, civil rights may not be termed as punitive on the verge of the double jeopardy analysis. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the clause is the protection of the defendant against multiple trials through making an appeal to the initial ruling. However, there is an exception to some cases which judgments cannot be reversed. Specifically, the decisions on non-final orders are not subject to the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment.
References
Chacon, Jennifer. Criminal Procedure: The Fifth Amendment It’s Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 2011. Print.
Doyle, Charles. Crime and Forfeiture. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2007. Print.
Duignan, Brian. The U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Law. New York: Britannica Educational Pub, 2013. Print.
Kumar, Lisa. American Law Yearbook 2013: A Guide to the Year’s Major Legal Cases and Developments. Detroit, Mich: Gale, 2014. Print.
Rudstein, David S. Double Jeopardy: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2004. Print.