Linux and the X wrote:Notice the last part of that: without full legal authorisation for a retrial. That is, the legal system may authorise double jeopardy.
Flibbleites wrote:And conversely the legal system can not authorize double jeopardy. Gee, it looks to me like those nations that don't want to allow double jeopardy in their nations, don't have to have it.
The problem that lead to the repeal is that some member nations don't want authorizing double jeopardy to even be an option. They want the international law to say explicitly "No Double Jeopardy."
I think just about everyone agrees that something called "double jeopardy" is bad. The problem we've been seeing lately is that people draw the double jeopardy line different places. Some (like the proponents of the repeal) think that any subsequent prosecution of a person who has been declared not guilty should be absolutely barred. Others think the prosecution should have a chance to appeal. Still others think that the prosecution should have an appeal and the power to retry serious cases if there were procedural errors/new evidence. And still others think that the prosecution should be able to retry any and every case if new evidence comes to light. And then there's all the positions in between.
With the lack of consensus on the issue, I'm tempted to advocate voting against this repeal. Unless we have a solid Double Jeopardy resolution ready to go, repealing this Habeas Corpus resolution is untimely. I'd rather keep these protections in place until we are truly ready to come to a consensus on what Double Jeopardy is, and how to protect people from it without unfairly limiting the prosecutorial powers of individual nations.