There is a very high profile case here in Uk which is to be brought back to trial (under English Law), 18yrs after the first trial which found the defendants innoccent of murder.

The case is that of a young black schoolboy who died after being jumped by a gang of white yobs. After a huge public enquiry it was deemed that the Metripolitan Police (London) were "instutionally racist"

Lots of debate here as to whether there should be a second trial (in light of new evidence). Most people think they are guilty but. How can they have fair trial?

Just wondered whether there are double jeapordy rules elsewhere? What do you guys think of the principle?

_________________
MOG


The roar of her mighty TRIUMPH was heard throughout the land

I did not know double jeopardy was permitted in the UK. In the US, it is forbidden under the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. In fact I just took a Civil Rights course last semester so I know all about this.

What do I think? If one commits a heinous crime and is acquitted, but years later a new evidence such as DNA irrefutably show that he is guilty, then hell yeah he should be tried again.

_________________
2008 Ducati Hypermotard 1100
2006 Kawasaki KLX250S
2004 Honda CBR600RR
2002 BMW R1150R
1996 Ducati 900SS

I wish we didn't have to debate this, that we would always put away the bad people and set free the good. Unfortunately this will never be reality.

I'm with HYPERR, if the case lacked evidence the first time around but now there is very strong (leaning on irrefutable) evidence, then yes they should be tried again. Innocent until proven guilty, even if it takes a while to prove the guiltiness.

_________________
Andrea