British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their, English country scene

free spins no deposit win real money | All Posts

Chipping Away at Double Jeopardy

It's always heartening when a criminal is brought to justice, particularly when that criminal is a murderer who has destroyed a young life. So we sympathise with Mrs. Ming who tried for years to bring her daughter's murderer to justice. The murderer had been brought to trial, but had been found not guilty. When he subsequently confessed to the crime while serving time in prison for another offence, Mrs Ming moved heaven and earth to have him tried again. This involved changing the law on double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy insures that if the state brings charges against you and you are found not guilty you cannot be tried for the same alleged offence again. The state is an extremely powerful organisation with vast resources. If it doesnt't like you, for whatever reason, possibly political, it can bring charges against you that you will have to defend against, subjecting you to anxiety, expense, and a miserable ordeal. Without the protection of double jeopardy, the state can move against you repeatedly in this uneven contest.

Hundreds of years ago our ancestors realised the hazards this presented, and made law to ensure that the state could only move against a person for a specific alleged crime once. Without this protection the state can produce a flimsy case, and if it doesn't work, can bring it again and again, destroying people in the process.

Since joining the EU, British legal protections of trial by jury, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, and right to silence have been repeatedly chipped away at to bring us closer to conformity with the Napoleonic Code now presented as the EU's Corpus Juris. Now the fifth plank of our protections against the state – "double jeopardy" – has been thrown overboard for certain crimes.

We applaud Mrs. Ming for her efforts to bring her daughter's murderer to justice, but we suspect that the reason she was able to get centuries of law and tradition changed was that this was already on our government's agenda as part of stripping away our protections.

These constraints on the state – trial by jury, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, right to silence, and double jeopardy – are part of the freedom and power given to the individual in Britain. They are part of the Freedom Network, which you can read about HERE > The result has been the flowering of liberty, creativity, and prosperity in Britain and in all the countries of the Britannic inheritance.