• 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

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,580
Reaction score
12,388
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Another thread in this forum posed an interesting question on parole which raised issue of double jeopardy and, for me, another interesting question.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads and is applied in all 50 states:

. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .​


Disclaimer: I have never done any physical harm to another human being, and I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

But. . .for the hypothetical. . .

If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .

Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?

Just for fun, discuss.


 
Yes, she can be prosecuted. It would be a separate offense.

(There was a really, really stupid movie with Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones about this. It was wrong.)
 
AlbqOwl said:
Another thread in this forum posed an interesting question on parole which raised issue of double jeopardy and, for me, another interesting question.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads and is applied in all 50 states:

. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .​


Disclaimer: I have never done any physical harm to another human being, and I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

But. . .for the hypothetical. . .

If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .

Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?

Just for fun, discuss.
Click to expand...

No. Double jeopardy applies to one specific case, not the type of crime.

If she were to murder him after he turned up alive, it would be a new case, and she's fair game to be tried in the new case.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Another thread in this forum posed an interesting question on parole which raised issue of double jeopardy and, for me, another interesting question.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads and is applied in all 50 states:

. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .​


Disclaimer: I have never done any physical harm to another human being, and I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

But. . .for the hypothetical. . .

If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .

Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?

Just for fun, discuss.
Click to expand...

There was a movie like this with Ashley Judd

I would say in the case of being found not guilty she could be arrested again for murdering person Y. It would be a different crime in that case

But if she was found guilty of murdering person Y and person Y showed up years later, and she was released from prison and then killed person why, I think she could not be
 
AlbqOwl said:
Another thread in this forum posed an interesting question on parole which raised issue of double jeopardy and, for me, another interesting question.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads and is applied in all 50 states:

. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .​


Disclaimer: I have never done any physical harm to another human being, and I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

But. . .for the hypothetical. . .

If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .

Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?

Just for fun, discuss.
Click to expand...

I think there was a movie with that as a premise....

No, the answer is that the second (real) murder is not the same crime, so the perpetrator can stand trial again.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, she can be prosecuted. It would be a separate offense.

(There was a really, really stupid movie with Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones about this. It was wrong.)
Click to expand...

It was wrong? are you sure? I actually do not know?

I agree with your answer here though 100% for this case because above the person was found INNOCENT and a new trial could be brought forward with new evidence...

but i thought the movie was right because the movie was different. The character ashley judd played was found guilty and went to jail

when she got out she planned on finding her alive husband and killing him again and they said it was double jeopardy and she could be found guilty of the same crime twice

but in the movie she killed him in self defense anyway so it didnt mater
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
There was a movie like this with Ashley Judd

I would say in the case of being found not guilty she could be arrested again for murdering person Y. It would be a different crime in that case

But if she was found guilty of murdering person Y and person Y showed up years later, and she was released from prison and then killed person why, I think she could not be
Click to expand...

Yes, she could. It's a separate offense.

They may take into account her time served when sentencing, but she can be tried again.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But. . .for the hypothetical. . .
If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .
Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?
Just for fun, discuss.
Click to expand...

Ashley Judd did it and she was never charged and went on to live a happy, free, and successful life. Though she was convicted and served the time for it, then killed him. If you were found not guilty the first time it has nothing to do with the future and you can be tried again.

 
AlbqOwl said:
Another thread in this forum posed an interesting question on parole which raised issue of double jeopardy and, for me, another interesting question.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads and is applied in all 50 states:

. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .​


Disclaimer: I have never done any physical harm to another human being, and I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

But. . .for the hypothetical. . .

If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .

Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?

Just for fun, discuss.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. Suppose was she was found not guilty of stealing a missing necklace. Then the very necklace shows up again, and she decides to steal it for real. Of course she can be prosecuted for the theft. It's the same thing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Another thread in this forum posed an interesting question on parole which raised issue of double jeopardy and, for me, another interesting question.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads and is applied in all 50 states:

. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .​


Disclaimer: I have never done any physical harm to another human being, and I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

But. . .for the hypothetical. . .

If the law arrested Jill and accused her of murdering say "Bill"--she had means, opportunity, and strong motive--but Jill was found not guilty by the jury due to insufficient evidence. And then Bill shows up alive and well. . . .and Jill still hates him. . .

Can she still do it? Murder him? With impunity because she was already tried and declared not guilty?

Just for fun, discuss.
Click to expand...

Usually, if there is a murder case, there is a body.


If he disappeared again, I would argue that they didn't have a case, or even if he came back from the crematorium I would make the argument that this guy can't play tricks on me like this anymore and have the case thrown out.

Then you'd have a free license to murder him again and again. Bill would have to run to the law.

Bill is obviously an advanced adept, so he is responsible for everything that she does to him.

But why is he playing games with her like this?

She should certainly get him in trouble and she should press her case like this.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
There was a movie like this with Ashley Judd

I would say in the case of being found not guilty she could be arrested again for murdering person Y. It would be a different crime in that case

But if she was found guilty of murdering person Y and person Y showed up years later, and she was released from prison and then killed person why, I think she could not be
Click to expand...

Others are logically arguing that she can be retried if she murders the person she was acquitted for murdering, but later found no murder had been committed. And so if she then did murder him for real that would be a second crime. But would it?

The movie "Double Jeopardy" with Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd is sort of this kind of scenario but not exactly the same thing described in the OP. The for real killing was not murder but a justified act to save the life of the parole officer.

The OP presents the concept of double jeopardy when you are acquitted of murdering a person that you didn't commit and then actually murder him perhaps in the same manner in which your were previously accused.

--You are accused of murdering "Bill"
--Bill was not killed.
--You are acquitted at trial.
--You then actually murder "Bill".

Now please I understand that I think ethically you committed murder and should stand trial and be convicted.
But is there no concept of double jeopardy your attorney can use to prevent a second trial for the murder of "Bill"?

Disclaimer: "The 'you' here is a rhetorical 'you' of course.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Ashley Judd did it and she was never charged and went on to live a happy, free, and successful life. Though she was convicted and served the time for it, then killed him. If you were found not guilty the first time it has nothing to do with the future and you can be tried again.

Click to expand...


But as I said in the previous post not the same thing. The actual killing in the movie was not a murder but was to prevent the murder of the parole officer. A much different thing. What the OP describes is murder.
 
Exquisitor said:
Usually, if there is a murder case, there is a body.


If he disappeared again, I would argue that they didn't have a case, or even if he came back from the crematorium I would make the argument that this guy can't play tricks on me like this anymore and have the case thrown out.

Then you'd have a free license to murder him again and again. Bill would have to run to the law.

Bill is obviously an advanced adept, so he is responsible for everything that she does to him.

But why is he playing games with her like this?

She should certainly get him in trouble and she should press her case like this.
Click to expand...

To convict on murder a body is not always required,
 
Harshaw said:
Think of it this way. Suppose was she was found not guilty of stealing a missing necklace. Then the very necklace shows up again, and she decides to steal it for real. Of course she can be prosecuted for the theft. It's the same thing.
Click to expand...

But can she? I am by no means a legal professional but I have worked in the legal profession (as legal secretary and research assistant) and I honestly cannot find anything that actually addresses this.

Vaguely though I do remember a television show--I think it was in the old "L.A. Law" series--in which the guy who had been acquitted of killing his wife who was later found not to be dead. He was grinning across the desk at the attorney and asked: "Can I still do it? And get away with it?" Or something to that effect. And I recall the attorney saying: "Well technically yes, but. . . ." and I forget what else he said but he was almost certainly trying to talk the guy out of it. (And probably trying to find some way to recuse himself as the guy's lawyer if he actually did it. :) )
 
If I kick your ass and then am found not guilty of assault because I have a great lawyer, I don't then have free reign to kick your ass whenever I want.

;)
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If I kick your ass and then am found not guilty of assault because I have a great lawyer, I don't then have free reign to kick your ass whenever I want.

;)
Click to expand...

LOL, true but a different thing. In this case the person was acquitted of a murder she didn't commit. Yet.

If you don't kick my ass and then are accused of doing so and are found not guilty because you have a great lawyer, would you then have license to do it? I wonder.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But can she? I am by no means a legal professional but I have worked in the legal profession (as legal secretary and research assistant) and I honestly cannot find anything that actually addresses this.

Vaguely though I do remember a television show--I think it was in the old "L.A. Law" series--in which the guy who had been acquitted of killing his wife who was later found not to be dead. He was grinning across the desk at the attorney and asked: "Can I still do it? And get away with it?" Or something to that effect. And I recall the attorney saying: "Well technically yes, but. . . ." and I forget what else he said but he was almost certainly trying to talk the guy out of it. (And probably trying to find some way to recuse himself as the guy's lawyer if he actually did it. :) )
Click to expand...

OK, suppose she actually steals the same necklace twice. She can still be prosecuted for it the second time.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Others are logically arguing that she can be retried if she murders the person she was acquitted for murdering, but later found no murder had been committed. And so if she then did murder him for real that would be a second crime. But would it?

The movie "Double Jeopardy" with Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd is sort of this kind of scenario but not exactly the same thing described in the OP. The for real killing was not murder but a justified act to save the life of the parole officer.

The OP presents the concept of double jeopardy when you are acquitted of murdering a person that you didn't commit and then actually murder him perhaps in the same manner in which your were previously accused.

--You are accused of murdering "Bill"
--Bill was not killed.
--You are acquitted at trial.
--You then actually murder "Bill".

Now please I understand that I think ethically you committed murder and should stand trial and be convicted.
But is there no concept of double jeopardy your attorney can use to prevent a second trial for the murder of "Bill"?

Disclaimer: "The 'you' here is a rhetorical 'you' of course.
Click to expand...

But it's not the same offense. It's a completely different one, on a different day, with a different fact pattern.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, suppose she actually steals the same necklace twice. She can still be prosecuted for it the second time.
Click to expand...

stealing is not murder LOL good lord. . .

thats like asking about rape or assault . . thats not the same at all and thats intellectually dishonest

Like I said im not sure but im pretty sure if you are found GUILTY they cant retrial you for the same murder. Thats the question. Ill have to look it up after work.

I think the LOGICAL argument would be though if the court dropped its early charges or expunges them . . then what? Seems to me thats all they would have to do. I mean if the person was found guilty and in jail and they found the victim alive thats what would happen . . and the person would be set free

sooooo if theres NEW evidence the victim was just killed today, the state drops the original charges and starts new ones. :shrug:
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
To convict on murder a body is not always required,
Click to expand...

I'm ******* Ignorant!!

But how do you like my hypothetical scenario?

Two lovers, one adept keeps coming back and getting murdered either by the lover who spurns him or some other karma.

Do I care that some adept has open season on him, should I be compassionate for his plight and just for his error of disturbing his former lover, what does he do about all these murders he keeps coming back from?
 
Harshaw said:
OK, suppose she actually steals the same necklace twice. She can still be prosecuted for it the second time.
Click to expand...

Yes. She can. But that still is not what I am asking in the OP.

A comparison using your example:

--She is accused of stealing a specific necklace of a worth constituting grand theft.
--She had not stolen the necklace and the jury finds her not guilty.
--Turns out the necklace had been misplaced and was never stolen.
--So she actually does steal it.
--Now, can she be tried for stealing it since she has already been aquitted of that crime?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes. She can. But that still is not what I am asking in the OP.

A comparison using your example:

--She is accused of stealing a specific necklace of a worth constituting grand theft.
--She had not stolen the necklace and the jury finds her not guilty.
--Turns out the necklace had been misplaced and was never stolen.
--So she actually does steal it.
--Now, can she be tried for stealing it since she has already been aquitted of that crime?
Click to expand...

She wasn't acquitted of that crime. She was acquitted of a different offense on a different day.
 
Harshaw said:
But it's not the same offense. It's a completely different one, on a different day, with a different fact pattern.
Click to expand...

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? The law states you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So technically if it is a murder of a specific person or grand theft of a specific item, is not there a gray area of double jeopardy involved?
 
Harshaw said:
She wasn't acquitted of that crime. She was acquitted of a different offense on a different day.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom