Introduction
Double jeopardy also referred to as non bis in idem is a rule that prohibits prosecution of an individual for a second time. The rule dictates that fugitives acquitted or convicted for same offenses should not be put under prosecution for the second time (Gracia, 15). However, it is important to note that different sovereigns hold differing stand points on prosecution of individuals for second time. As an example, United States of America and Jamaica are two countries that prohibit double jeopardy. Particularly, double jeopardy is prohibited by the 5th Amendment of the United States constitution (Rudstein, 11) . The Clause is put in place to protect people from three different exploitations. The first one is to protect an individual from second prosecution for a similar offense after acquittal, the second abuse is a second time prosecution for similar crime after conviction and the final abuse is several punishments for a similar offense (Gracia, 15). As an example, in the United States vs. Salinas Doria case whereby the United States had requested the defendant to be extradited from Mexico where the defendant had been acquitted of charges of illegal drugs, the defendant tried to dismiss indictment citing violation of double jeopardy provisions (Iraola, 705).
Even though Jamaica and the United States are two different countries which hold different status in the world, both countries prohibits the rule of double jeopardy to protect their citizens from unreasonable treatment and exploitation. Apparently, Jamaica is considered by the international community as a less developed country, while the United States is recognized as a developed country (Don, 1). Notice that Jamaica is an island that receives aid from many different countries such England, the United States and China. United States on the contrary, is a country that provides aid to other countries in need such as Haiti, and many other African countries. It occurs that Jamaica is an island that has been surged into debt after the transition from ex Prime Minister Edward Seagal (Don, 1). This is evidenced by the country’s financial history. On the other hand, United States has been known through out as a superpower entity whose presence and recognition in the world is eminent. Unlike Jamaica, United States is one of the most prominent developed countries which have predominately been on the forefront to support the developing countries such as Jamaica. Despite this recognition, there are issues that United States shares with Jamaica. This is the view on the double jeopardy ruling which the two countries prohibits through their national constitution. The prohibition is evidenced by the a Jamaican case, Dennis Reid vs. Queen whereby the defendant was tried and convicted of murder through a court ruling that depended on facts from one eyewitness. The defendant appealed on the ruling whereby the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction citing unreasonable verdict which was not sustained by enough evidence. The court requested for a retrial upon which the defendant appealed through the ‘Privy Council’ who ruled that the case condition required no trial as this would violate the Amendment that prohibits double Jeopardy (Pillai, 79).
In the Jamaican constitution it prohibits the double jeopardy rule which is the prosecution of a person on an offense more than once after a conviction or an acquittal. Similarly, this rule applies in the United States under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. In United States double jeopardy indicates that a person cannot be reconvicted for the same offense based on the same act that they were once convicted of (Pillai, 75). It is evident through their legal systems that both countries though founded on different standards agree that a prosecutor should not be allowed to make more than one attempt to convict an individual for an alleged offense. This is because double jeopardy subjects individuals to embarrassment, financial problems, or even convicting an innocent person after two separate trials on the same claims (Evans, 1). If for instance, a prosecutor reties a case whereby the defendant was found innocent and the second trial finds the same person guilty, such a procedure can cause that individual to be financially unstable because of lawyer’s fees, courts fees etc.
It is evident that time and time again many cases are thrown out of court due to the amendments made in the constitutions of Jamaica and that of United States regarding the double jeopardy rule. In Jamaica it is shown through varies news sources that provisions on double jeopardy are being widely practiced across Jamaica (Don, 1). For example, a group of students who were once suspended from school on one offense were saved from expulsion because of the suspension. It was the law of the school that no student can be punished twice for one offense. The policy which has been adopted by many schools in Jamaica is a clear indication of how the country and its citizens view the double jeopardy rule.
In the United States, for instance, Melvin was involved in a case whereby he was charged and tried for illegal possession of a firearm. During his trial, the judge ruled that prosecution did not prove the requirements to consider the gun Mr. Smith had as a firearm, from this, the state presented that based on a witness testimony that the gun was a pistol it was already identified as a firearm. The judge then reversed his decision and submitted the trial to a jury. Mr. Smith appealed against the ruling the case through the Supreme Court and it ruled by a 5-4 majority that this was a violation of the Fifth Amendment and the double jeopardy rule. The reversal was considered a double jeopardy because the judge had initially made a decision and then decided to direct the case to a jury therefore making his decisions an acquittal. It is essential to note that this acquittal hindered the court from trying the case again. Both cases in Jamaica and the United States show that each nation has built their law system to protect the citizens from any unreasonable and unfair punishments.
Although both countries have amendments that protect the citizens from double jeopardy, in recent news it was discovered that it has been the responsibility of Jamaica’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Paula Llewellyn to have the amendment reversed (Go-Jamaica, 1). However, the reversal of the amendment on double jeopardy will in due course grant the prosecution the right of re-trying a case if the verdict they anticipated was not the out come of the trial. Of note is that the Cabinet has issued drafting instructions for legislation to give the prosecution the authority to petition not guilty verdicts in some circumstances. The debate being made by the prosecutors in Jamaica is prompted by the increased rates of corruption and cases of bribery (Go-Jamaica, 1). It is suggested that the double jeopardy rule as held in Jamaica will definitely hinder the legal system from working as it should by putting those who are guilty of any crime behind bars. On the other hand, the U.S. government has no intention of reversing the provisions of the 5th Amendment (Gracia, 15).
However, the step being made by the Jamaican legal system shows a similar pattern to the changes that was made recently to Jamaica’s ex colonizer England’s legal system. In 2006, it was reported that in England the double jeopardy rule which has been applied in the country for over 800 years was reversed hence giving the prosecutors the right to have re-trials on an acquittal or on not guilty convictions if substance evidence presents it self after the original case ends (BBC, 1).
As a matter of fact, Jamaica unlike United States has a higher level of corruption, influence and power that keeps the legal system from efficiently performing its main functions. Notably, the function of the legal system in Jamaica just like in United States is to put those who commit crimes behind bars and to punish them for their wrong doing (Choo, 2). With the double jeopardy rule it is usually hard for prosecutors to take those with power and high influence off the streets, and also to keep them from committing more crimes against society.
Nonetheless, despite the high level of corruption, the Jamaican government has so far upheld the provision of the Country’s national constitution which prohibits double jeopardy (Choo, 2). Similarly, the united States just like Jamaica have maintained similar standards as far as double jeopardy is concerned. It has been the opinion of majority of people from the two countries that because both the United States and Jamaica share common things such as their national language and some ways of living, they should also share similar rules and regulations.
Conclusion
It is worth noting that both the United States and Jamaica’s constitution prohibits the rule of double jeopardy. It is quite evident that double jeopardy affects a person psychologically, financially and emotionally especially when an individual is prosecuted twice for one alleged offense (Hickling, 82). Even though there is debates about making changes to the double jeopardy rule there has been no set conclusion that has reversed the rule in the island of Jamaica or in the US, therefore both countries share common laws in matters relating to double jeopardy.
Work Cited
Robotham, Don. "Jamaica, the Third World and the Global Crisis." Professor of Anthropology, Graduate Center,City University of New York, 14 Jan2009. Web. 22 Jul 2011. <http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/robotham-jamaica-and-the-global-crisis.pdf>.
Michael John Garcia. Extradition to and from United States: Overview of the Law and Recent
Treaties. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010
Roberto Iraola. Jurisdiction, Treaties, and Due process. Buffalo Law Review, 59 (2011):693-714
Chandrasekharan Pillai. Double Jeopardy Protection: A Comparative Overview. Texas: Mittal
Publications, 1988
Andrew T.Choo. Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceeding. London: Oxford
University Press, 1993
Frederick Hickling. Double Jeopardy: Pyschopathology of Balck Mentally III Returned Migrants
to Jamaica. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 37.2 (1991):80-89.
David Stewart Rudstein. Double Jeopardy: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution.
New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004
"Double jeopardy law ushered out ." BBC NEWS 03 Apr 2005: 1. Web. 20
Jul 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm>.
David Evans. Double Jeopardy . Jamaica Gleaner 05 May 2005: 1. Web.
19 Jul 2011.
<http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20050505/letters/letters4.html>.
"Double jeopardy rule being drafted." Go-Jamaica 24 Feb 2011: 1. Web.
21 Jul 2011. <http://go- jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=26712 >.July 25, 2011
