Friday, 15 May 2015

US court convicts father of murdering daughter after multiple double jeopardy violations

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

retrial after an acquittal;
retrial after a conviction;
retrial after certain mistrials; and
multiple punishment

Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in, in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence after the first witness is sworn in, or when a court accepts a defendant's plea unconditionally. Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of another grand jury if the prior one refuses to return an indictment.


snork maiden said...

So, your stance is that he's guilty, but you think killing a child is justified when money is involved?

And, before you talk about it behooving a woman not to get pregnant under your proposal to beat unwed mothers in public, under the current system it behooves the man who might find himself child support to take care over who he gets pregnant. Ergo, it's his own fault he was saddled with child support.

What I don't understand is if the mother's new husband was prepared to adopt the child, why would Brown still be financially liable?

Claire Khaw said...

I am saying that parents should have the right to commit filicide before their children comes of age.

I am also saying that the law should *not* oblige a man to support his illegitimate offspring.

Maybe even after adoption the child would still be maintained by her biological father?

snork maiden said...

Wow, you believe it's okay for parents to kill their children? So, no one should have a right to life before eighteen years old?

When a child is adopted the biological parent surrenders all rights and obligations. That would've been the best solution all round, certainly better than throwing a four year old girl off a cliff.

Claire Khaw said...

Other parents killing their children will not affect me and as a libertarian, I am obliged not to interfere if what someone does does not affect me.

Most parents love their children and the ones who do not do not deserve to have offspring, so the problem solves itself.

If the law does not oblige a man to support his illegitimate offspring, then none of this would have happened.

If the law shamed sluts, none of this would have happened.

A coming of age ceremony is around 14.

snork maiden said...

Don't children under fourteen have the right not to be murdered by their parents? By that same tack do you think it's all right for parents to sexually abuse or beat their children?

So as a 'libertarian' you don't care about anything that doesn't affect you personally? I think the actual term for that is selfish.

So is the only reason you're so obsessed with 'sluts' because you believe their actions affect you personally? How so?

Claire Khaw said...

Even if we have the right not to be murdered people are still murdered, aren't they?

I must say I like the idea of a Coming of Age Ceremony.

As a libertarian, I must acknowledge the limits of my concerns and the state's, especially if it does not harm the long term national interest.

Under Secular Koranism SSMs would be lashed 100 times per bastard.

If that were the case sluts like that trolley dolly would not be going around using men as sperm banks, and none of this would have happened.