Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

Source:

Double Jeopardy; Until a Former Girlfriend Goes Before Grand Jury. July 15, 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/25/48hours/murder/main325643.shtml

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment 5
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Explanation of Connection:

            This rather dated article tells the story of a case in which the constitutional law preventing double jeopardy is clearly abused by a particular individual. This person is being accused of murdering his girlfriend, yet even before investigations began, the family and friends of the victim as well as the rest of his community suspected him as the criminal. However, when it came time of his court trial, the jury found him innocent. The U.S. Constitution states that after a jury finds you innocent for a particular offence, you cannot be charged with that same offence a second time. So unfortunately, the man got away with his crime. And he did so with pride. Until his former girlfriend is forced to face the Grand Jury, which leads to an entirely different article.
           
            This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 5 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution prevents citizens of the U.S. from having to go before a jury and be prosecuted for the same offence in two different court trials. Our founding fathers used a specific term for this occurrence: Double Jeopardy. If a suspected criminal faces a jury in court, and they declare him an innocent man, the 5th Amendment of the constitution prevents the individual from being able to be charged with the same offence and be put in jeopardy again for something a jury has already proved him innocent for. This is why the suspected criminal in my article was able to walk the streets a murderer, without having to worry about going through a second trial based on the same charges and having to face the possibility of prison once again.

            I do agree that this amendment is needed in our society, because if it did not exist, I could imagine suspects being forced into several back-to-back court trials on the same charges because the jury doesn't give the verdict that prosecutors want. And that can be unfair, especially to a truly innocent man. However, this amendment is clearly being abused. The jury found the suspected murderer in my article innocent. They did not believe he was the killer of his girlfriend. So, the courts were forced to let him go without being able to make him face a second jury in hopes for a different verdict. Although this man had been declared innocent, everyone knew it was truly him. Family members, friends, neighbors,  etc. But they failed to present any evidence in the first court trial, which gave the jury reason to think he was innocent. I have mixed feelings about this, because this man can truly be a murderer. However, it is only fair that he is not forced into another court trial and have to face another jury. So he had to be let go.