Demolishing D.J? and Originality of the law
The
double jeopardy law is fundamental to criminal law and the justice system.
Originally it was to protect the accused person from being harassed by multiple
prosecutions regarding the same issue which is a positive for a person being
accused for a crime they never did. But however there are negatives, for
example the R v Carroll [2002] case continued on for well over a decade due to
many prosecutions being held against him. The reason for this indictment was
because in his original trial he was firstly accused for the abuse and murder
of a 16 month old baby in the early 70’s, but due to a lack of substantial
evidence placed against him, he was acquitted.
The cognitive of enacting this particular law has lost its original intentions
and now has become a law that does not serve justice to offenders. Queensland’s
Attorney General, Jarrod Bleijie states “If we can change a piece of
legislation that puts a person before the court that still has the due process
and is able to find that person guilty of a horrific offence, then I think
that’s justice served” (Stevenson, 2014). Along with Jarrod’s eagerness to
abolish the double jeopardy law, former Prime Minister of Australia, John
Howard states that “I’m very much in favour of changing things that don’t work
and this rule doesn’t work…the demented, dogmatic adherence to something
because it’s been around for a long time”