Double Jeopardy/ Dual Sovereignty

DOUBLE JEOPARDY/ DUAL SOVEREIGNTY Name: Grade Course: Tutor`s Name: (24 September 2010) Double Jeopardy/ Dual Sovereignty The double jeopardy of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution explains that no one should be subjected for the similar offense to be twice put in the jeopardy of limb or life. It protects the American citizens against three major things; firstly, a person can`t be prosecuted for the similar offense for the second time after being acquitted, or judged innocently by the court at first. Secondly, no person can be prosecuted for a second time for the same offense after being found guilty in the previous trial. Lastly, no person can receive multiple punishments for the same crime. This research paper analyses why under certain circumstances, two state trials in two different states for the murder of the same person will not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Also, analyze why, under certain circumstances, a state trial and a federal trial may be held for the murder of the same person without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Nowadays it is possible under some circumstance, two state trials in two different states for the murder of the same person, in circumstances where the two states share the concurrent criminal jurisdiction. The U.S. constitution does not obligate a sovereign state to have the recognition of another state`s penal judgments, hence giving room for the states to prosecute a defendant regardless of any legal actions that might have been taken previously against the defendant, (Dax, 2000). Despite the fact that, the 5th amendments of the United States Constitution provides for such protections against prosecutions that are sequential, the United States does not extend such protection to defendants whose prosecution has taken place in another sovereign state, (Dax, 2000). Under the judiciary-constructed dual sovereignty doctrine, the courts of U.S allow separate sovereigns to seek redress for violations of their law independent of any deed that might have been taken by another affected sovereign previously. It is under this doctrine of that the U.S courts in deciding not to recognize the non bis in dem as a treating binding principle of the international law, but rather as the protection law that might be provided only by the treaty incase of an extradition. In most of the times, the defendants are left with no or little protections even with the provision of operative treaty, (Carlan, 20...