• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hypothetical: Can I still murder?

AlbqOwl said:
When there has been a trial for a specific offense, where in the law does it specify a specific day or a specific fact pattern matters?
Click to expand...

Because the specific fact pattern makes up the elements of the offense. Each offense is a separate thing.

The law states you cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
Click to expand...

No, it says someone can't be put in jeopardy of life and limb twice for the some offense. An offense is a specific event.

The way you're reading this, that you can't be tried twice for the same "crime," then no, you wouldn't be able to be tried again if you steal the same necklace twice, because it would be the same crime.
 
AlbqOwl said:
She was acquitted for the murder of "Bill".

or

She was acquitted for the grand theft of a specific necklace.

Those were the crimes. I cannot lay my finger on the point of law that says a different day or different circumstances matter when it comes to grand theft or murder.

And while that is true, please understand that I am playing devil's advocate here for purposes of discussing an interesting situation. Interesting to me anyway.
Click to expand...

Again, by the way you're reading it here, someone could steal the same necklace many times but only be put on trial for it once.
 
Harshaw said:
Because the specific fact pattern makes up the elements of the offense. Each offense is a separate thing.



No, it says someone can't be put in jeopardy of life and limb twice for the some offense. An offense is a specific event.

The way you're reading this, that you can't be tried twice for the same "crime," then no, you wouldn't be able to be tried again if you steal the same necklace twice, because it would be the same crime.
Click to expand...

Explain how 'offense' and 'crime' are not the same thing though.
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
FBI — Violent Crime​
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

So double jeopardy is to prevent the law from prosecuting twice for the same offense or crime, i.e. offense and crime are the same thing.

Stealing the necklace once: a crime or offense
Stealing the necklace a second time: a second crime or offense

In this case the necklace was stolen once, after the acquittal. Not the same thing.
 
Harshaw said:
Again, by the way you're reading it here, someone could steal the same necklace many times but only be put on trial for it once.
Click to expand...

Nope just one stealing. Not multiple stealings.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Explain how 'offense' and 'crime' are not the same thing though.

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
FBI — Violent Crime​
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

Stealing the necklace once: a crime
Stealing the necklace a second time: a second crime

In this case the necklace was stolen once, after the acquittal. Not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Alb, I've described it as simply as I possibly can. At this point, there's really very little else I can say. If you're not convinced, then so be it, but repeating what I've already said won't really add anything.
 
Harshaw said:
Alb, I've described it as simply as I possibly can. At this point, there's really very little else I can say. If you're not convinced, then so be it, but repeating what I've already said won't really add anything.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I am not convinced. I am simply arguing the case. And I don't think you can point to a law that confirms that you have made your case.

Believe me I've tried to come up with something that would confirm your point of view on this as I think such specification should be made in the law somewhere. But I have been unable to find it.

Therefore we have the interesting prospect of somebody being able to commit a crime or offense under the protection of double jeopardy.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't say I am not convinced. I am simply arguing the case. And I don't think you can point to a law that confirms that you have made your case.

Believe me I've tried to come up with something that would confirm your point of view on this as I think such specification should be made in the law somewhere. But I have been unable to find it.

Therefore we have the interesting prospect of somebody being able to commit a crime or offense under the protection of double jeopardy.
Click to expand...


Blockburger v. United States is directly on point.

Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.
Click to expand...

A later crime requires exactly that.
 
Harshaw said:

Blockburger v. United States is directly on point.

[indnent


Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.​

A later crime requires exactly that.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does according to the quoted statement. There were not two offenses. Only one was actually committed. The case cites regarded whether more than one charge could be included in the same event. It had nothing to do with double jeopardy in which a person was acquitted of a crime and then committed the crime.

Could the person be acquitted of stealing a specific package of marijuana and then be tried when they actually stole that same specific package? That is the question here and the case study does not address that.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I don't think it does according to the quoted statement. There were not two offenses. Only one was actually committed.
Click to expand...

The second trial would require proving additional facts that the first one did not.

(And if there was only one offense, then there can't be any double jeopardy, and the trial may proceed.)
 
Consider the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was acquitted and walked. No amount of incriminating evidence that was subsequently unearthed would give the law license to try him again for that murder.

But. . .if new evidence was uncovered that showed that he also committed grand theft or some other serious crime for which he was not charged at his trial, he could be charged and tried for the grand theft I think. I'm not sure about that even. But if it could be done, the murders could not be included in the testimony and the judge just couldn't take into consideration the murders when he passed the sentence even though the new evidence placed O.J. at the scene.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Consider the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was acquitted and walked. No amount of incriminating evidence that was subsequently unearthed would give the law license to try him again for that murder.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, because you can't retry the same offense. But that's not Nicole Simpson suddenly appearing alive and then OJ killing her at a later date.

But. . .if new evidence was uncovered that showed that he also committed grand theft or some other serious crime for which he was not charged at his trial, he could be charged and tried for the original crime I think.
Click to expand...

No, he couldn't. He could charged for the grand theft or the other serious crime, because they are separate offenses. He could not be charged with the murder again.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it wouldn't, because you can't retry the same offense. But that's not Nicole Simpson suddenly appearing alive and then OJ killing her at a later date.



No, he couldn't. He could charged for the grand theft or the other serious crime, because they are separate offenses. He could not be charged with the murder again.
Click to expand...

I think what you are arguing SHOULD BE the law.

I so far remain unconvinced that he couldn't now kill those people now with impunity. Most especially if the crime was committed in exactly the same way.

The movie "Ground Hog Day" comes to mind. :)
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think what you are arguing SHOULD BE the law.

I so far remain unconvinced that he couldn't now kill those people now with impunity. Most especially if the crime was committed in exactly the same way.

The movie "Ground Hog Day" comes to mind. :)
Click to expand...

Like I said, if you're not convinced, I don't know what else to tell you, but what I described is how it works. It's up to you to believe it or not; it is what it is regardless.
 
Harshaw said:
Like I said, if you're not convinced, I don't know what else to tell you, but what I described is how it works. It's up to you to believe it or not; it is what it is regardless.
Click to expand...

I am simply arguing a hypothetical question. It is not intended to be argumentative or to offend anybody. Some people are offended if others simply disagree with them no matter how friendly the discussion. I'm not saying that is you, but your comment here does come across as somewhat accusatory.

The OP is not about what I believe. It asks a specific hypothetical question. You have done a commendable effort of research in an attempt to answer the question but in my opinion, you have not provided me with a good legal argument that would stand up in court when addressing the specific issue. Arguing a different issue does not address the specific issue which is:

Can you go ahead and commit the crime with impunity which you hadn't done but for which you had already been tried and acquitted?

Now if you can find the specific point of law that says you cannot, I would like to have it.

But for now, the question remains unanswered by anything other than opinion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am simply arguing a hypothetical question. It is not intended to be argumentative or to offend anybody. Some people are offended if others simply disagree with them no matter how friendly the discussion. I'm not saying that is you, but your comment here does come across as somewhat accusatory.

The OP is not about what I believe. It asks a specific hypothetical question. You have done a commendable effort of research in an attempt to answer the question but in my opinion, you have not provided me with a good legal argument that would stand up in court when addressing the specific issue. Arguing a different issue does not address the specific issue which is:

Can you go ahead and commit the crime with impunity which you hadn't done but for which you had already been tried and acquitted?

Now if you can find the specific point of law that says you cannot, I would like to have it.

But for now, the question remains unanswered by anything other than opinion.
Click to expand...

Alb, I pointed you to the Blockburger test, which is dispositive of the matter. Double jeopardy does not apply if there are additional facts needing to be proved compared to the previous trial. That settles it, definitively. You're choosing to believe, for whatever reason, that it doesn't.

I'm not offended, but I do wonder why exactly you're so motivated to reject being convinced.
 
Harshaw said:
Alb, I pointed you to the Blockburger test, which is dispositive of the matter. Double jeopardy does not apply if there are additional facts needing to be proved compared to the previous trial. That settles it, definitively. You're choosing to believe, for whatever reason, that it doesn't.

I'm not offended, but I do wonder why exactly you're so motivated to reject being convinced.
Click to expand...

There is no amount of new evidence, however positively conclusive, that would allow the law to retry O.J. Simpson for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Blockburger is describing two different crimes involving different things. Not the person committing the exact crime for which he/she had already been acquitted.

Now if you can show me how Blockburger specifically addresses the bolded sentence here, I'll concede you have provided evidence. I don't think you can do that though.

And I don't know why you insist on making this something personal about me. Can we just focus on the question please? If you say you have proved it, fine. That's your opinion. It hasn't convinced me but what I am convinced of is not the topic of this discussion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is no amount of new evidence, however positively conclusive, that would allow the law to retry O.J. Simpson for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. But that has nothing whatsoever to with your hypothetical, nor anything I said.


Blockburger is describing two different crimes involving different things. Not the person committing the exact crime for which he/she had already been acquitted.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, as does your own scenario.

If she was on trial in June of 2010, and then she actually managed to kill her husband in April of 2015, she was not on trial IN 2010 for the April, 2015 murder of her husband.

It is a separate crime and a separate event.
 
Harshaw said:
No, there isn't. But that has nothing whatsoever to with your hypothetical, nor anything I said.




Yes, it is, as does your own scenario.

If she was on trial in June of 2010, and then she actually managed to kill her husband in April of 2015, she was not on trial IN 2010 for the April, 2015 murder of her husband.

It is a separate crime and a separate event.
Click to expand...

Blockburger was dealing with how penalties should be assessed in the case of multiple offenses the perpetrator actually committed. We might discuss that in light of whether the corporate banker convicted of racketeering should get jail time AND a fine. That happens all the time.

The scenario in this thread is something quite different.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Blockburger was dealing with how penalties should be assessed in the case of multiple offenses the perpetrator actually committed. We might discuss that in light of whether the corporate banker convicted of racketeering should get jail time AND a fine. That happens all the time.

The scenario in this thread is something quite different.
Click to expand...

No, Blockburger gave the test as to determine when something is a separate offense, period. It is THE test applied when determining such things for double jeopardy purposes.

I say again:

If she was on trial in June of 2010, and then she actually managed to kill her husband in April of 2015, she was not on trial IN 2010 for the April, 2015 murder of her husband.

It is a separate crime and a separate event.
 
Harshaw said:
No, Blockburger gave the test as to determine when something is a separate offense, period. It is THE test applied when determining such things for double jeopardy purposes.

I say again:

If she was on trial in June of 2010, and then she actually managed to kill her husband in April of 2015, she was not on trial IN 2010 for the April, 2015 murder of her husband.

It is a separate crime and a separate event.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But Blockburger muddies those waters by treating some of the separate sales as the same event.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Maybe. But Blockburger muddies those waters by treating some of the separate sales as the same event.
Click to expand...

It doesn't affect anything about your hypothetical. Her first trial was not for the subsequent murder.
 
Harshaw said:
It doesn't affect anything about your hypothetical. Her first trial was not for the subsequent murder.
Click to expand...

You may be right but can you be tried twice for killing the same person? I still see a murky gray area re that. And I know of no court case or law that addresses it.
 
"The law is not an ass", it is said.



Well, ok, sometimes it is. It's just not that much of one.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't say I am not convinced. I am simply arguing the case. And I don't think you can point to a law that confirms that you have made your case.

Believe me I've tried to come up with something that would confirm your point of view on this as I think such specification should be made in the law somewhere. But I have been unable to find it.

Therefore we have the interesting prospect of somebody being able to commit a crime or offense under the protection of double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

First off, you're not going to find a statute, unless some state has decided to expand related protections by statute. Double jeopardy is a matter of constitutional interpretation, so you need to look at appellate decisions.

Second, you are not understanding what constitutes "same offense". It is not simply the name of the charge or the statute you are charge under plus the name of the victim(s). It is as well the specific set of facts: in short, what you did and when you did it. The fact that you were incorrectly tried for killing Mrs. Peakcock in the library with the wrench does not mean you cannot be tried for killing Mrs. Peacock in the kitchen with a hammer two years later.



AlbqOwl said:
Consider the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was acquitted and walked. No amount of incriminating evidence that was subsequently unearthed would give the law license to try him again for that murder.

But. . .if new evidence was uncovered that showed that he also committed grand theft or some other serious crime for which he was not charged at his trial, he could be charged and tried for the grand theft I think. I'm not sure about that even. But if it could be done, the murders could not be included in the testimony and the judge just couldn't take into consideration the murders when he passed the sentence even though the new evidence placed O.J. at the scene.
Click to expand...


The only thing O.J. Simpson cannot be retried for is murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on June 12, 1994.

If they are magically found alive in Seattle tomorrow, and OJ goes out there and shoots them dead, those are different offenses despite the fact that the charges would be two counts of first degree murder regarding the same victims.
 
I shudder to think how many courtrooms had to listen to the "double jeopardy" excuse after that crap movie came out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom