Jump to content

SCOTUS to hear challenge to double-jeopardy law that allows states to charge someone for a crime they've been cleared of (or pardoned for) federally. Gee, what a coincidence.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

I already assumed that the Fifth Amendment did prohibit such a practice from the outset.  I'm genuinely surprised that there was precedent to allow it to happen.

 

Dual sovereigns. It's not considered double jeopardy because it's not the same government prosecuting you a second time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting all Trump nonsense aside, it kinda seems like this should be the case. I understand there is a real distinction between the State and Federal governments, but you probably shouldn't be able to be tied for the same crime twice, especially if you're convicted by the feds in the first place. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Setting all Trump nonsense aside, it kinda seems like this should be the case. I understand there is a real distinction between the State and Federal governments, but you probably shouldn't be able to be tied for the same crime twice, especially if you're convicted by the feds in the first place. 

I am in 100% agreement with this.

 

There's just something "wrong" on a "moral level" about trying someone twice for the same crime, especially if one sovereign entity or the other has already acquitted you of the crime.  Of course, there are going to be situations where "justice" (whatever the hell that is!) may not be served by prohibiting another trial at the Federal or state level, but I think that risk is significantly outweighed by the moral dimensions of allowing such trials to occur.

 

Once again, the superiority of the non-Federal, unitary state is demonstrated as such conundrums would NEVER occur to begin with :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Setting all Trump nonsense aside, it kinda seems like this should be the case. I understand there is a real distinction between the State and Federal governments, but you probably shouldn't be able to be tied for the same crime twice, especially if you're convicted by the feds in the first place

 

But what if you're never convicted because the president preemptively pardons you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I am in 100% agreement with this.

 

There's just something "wrong" on a "moral level" about trying someone twice for the same crime, especially if one sovereign entity or the other has already acquitted you of the crime.  Of course, there are going to be situations where "justice" (whatever the hell that is!) may not be served by prohibiting another trial at the Federal or state level, but I think that risk is significantly outweighed by the moral dimensions of allowing such trials to occur.

 

Once again, the superiority of the non-Federal, unitary state is demonstrated as such conundrums would NEVER occur to begin with :p

 

Let's put a scenario out there:

 

Trump knows that one of his cronies is going to be charged by New York state for financial crimes. Heck, let's say it's even Kushner. So Trump orders Sessions to charge Kushner with the same crime, and start a trial. Then, Trump pardons Kushner. Because of this, he cannot now be charged with the same crime in New York State. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Let's put a scenario out there:

 

Trump knows that one of his cronies is going to be charged by New York state for financial crimes. Heck, let's say it's even Kushner. So Trump orders Sessions to charge Kushner with the same crime, and start a trial. Then, Trump pardons Kushner. Because of this, he cannot now be charged with the same crime in New York State. 

That's primarily issue with pardon authority and largely doesn't change my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

But what if you're never convicted because the president preemptively pardons you?

Then you've been pardoned by the US government of that crime and the state shouldn't be able to try you for it. My understanding of pardons is that you've effectively been "convicted" of the crime in so much as that you've admitted guilt (which would end the trial) and the pardon is releasing you from the consequences of the crime. So in either case, if you're actually convicted or you're pardoned, as far as the US government is concerned, the issue of you having committed the crime is over.

 

My issue with this (or the specific scenario that @CitizenVectron mentions) isn't a question of double Jeopardy, but one of the President's pardon power. The situation with Trump is obviously unique and it certainly seems like he and his cronies will probably get off because of it, but that doesn't mean that double jeopardy between the States and the Federal government is a good idea.

 

The guy in this specific case was convicted of a crime by the state and sent to prison for it. Then the federal government convicted him again of the same crime and sent him back to prison. That not only seems obviously wrong and blatantly unconstitutional, but it's also an incredibly stupid and inefficient way for a criminal justice system to work.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, my issue isn't with double jeopardy. I actually agree with TwinIon and SFLUFAN that on its face, it shouldn't be possible (except in cases where an extreme misappropriation of the law or justice has occurred). 

 

But it's the timing. That's what gets me. Like with approving the Muslim Ban, it's like saying it should be legal "normally" so we'll make it legal "in this case" even though "in this case" IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.

 

Meh. Fuggit I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

To be clear, my issue isn't with double jeopardy. I actually agree with TwinIon and SFLUFAN that on its face, it shouldn't be possible (except in cases where an extreme misappropriation of the law or justice has occurred). 

It shouldn't be possible even in those scenarios.

 

If you are anything resembling a "liberal", then you should be 100% of the position that the "state" at any level does not get a "do over" even if it was egregiously wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

It shouldn't be possible even in those scenarios.

 

If you are anything resembling a "liberal", then you should be 100% of the position that the "state" does not get a "do over" even if it was egregiously wrong.

 

No, I agree. I think extreme miscarriages of justice is a highly unique exception though. And with any rule, you have to account for exceptions. Nothing is 100% anything. With that being said, yes, for 99% of the time, the law should be changed for that to be the case. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No, I agree. I think extreme miscarriages of justice is a highly unique exception though. And with any rule, you have to account for exceptions. Nothing is 100% anything. With that being said, yes, for 99% of the time, the law should be changed for that to be the case. :)

This is is a situation where there should be no exceptions whatsoever.  Within the legal system, this should be as ironclad as the presumption of innocence and the right to a jury of trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

This is is a situation where there should be no exceptions whatsoever.  Within the legal system, this should be as ironclad as the presumption of innocence and the right to a jury of trial.

 

Eh, I don't think so. We already have appellate review, I don't think it's hard to imagine allowing a state court to re-open a case using an appellate review process to re-litigate a case where something extreme happened that can't be re-litigated at the federal level (for whatever reason).

 

I think it's dangerous to make the argument you're making because the need for re-litigation at different judicial levels has happened before and I like at least a window to remain open for that possibility. I doubt it could be abused, if legislated correctly. Highly suspect judicial cases do exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I doubt it could be abused, if legislated correctly.

Then that's your answer right there as to what it should never happen.

 

Do you honestly want to give this legal system the ability to put some poor black guy on trial until the "state" gets it "right"?  The answer to that question is a resounding "No!" even if it means that some repugnant white racist gets away scot-free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Then that's your answer right there as to what it should never happen.

 

Sorry, I didn't fully understand that. What do you mean? :)

 

Just now, mclumber1 said:

NYAG, and possibly other state AGs, should pursue crimes that are state level and not mirrored federally, just in case this ploy is successful.

 

This is the loophole I'm sure would be used when and if possible. But you can't pin like-for-like crimes in every instance, or even similar ones to force a re-litigation. It's something though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...