The United States judicial system is composed of two court systems that is federal and the state, the two having being created due to the United States federalism. That means the powers of the government were to be shared between the federal and state government. In the country, therefore, the two sovereignties are prohibited by the law from trying a defendant twice of the same case, but the defendants can be charged. This paper will aim at expounding more on the judicial system of the country by the help of answering questions provided in the course work.
To start with, I think states should be allowed to charge and convict a defendant for the same crime that they may have been found guilty of in another state or federal court. From the evidence of earlier cases, it is clear that more than eighty percent people have been judged with criminal cases in different federal courts in the country, but only two percent of those defendants enter into trials. The rest of the population is acquitted for lack of evidence, that shows that there are so many criminals who are walking Scott free (Bartels, 2013). Trial rates in the country have remained to be very law across various offenses in the country; they have continued to be very rare; for example, they are less common in the federal criminal justice system. States were given the power to charge defendants cases who may have been found not guilty from other states will help in catapulting the number of criminal cases being heard in our judicial system and therefore reduce cases of crime such as drug trafficking. Some cases will be reduced because even after these defendants being acquitted by one state. They will still not feel free because another state may bring their them back to trial any time evidence is acquired.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Different states should be given the power to charge defendants cases from other states because trials in the courts of various states differ. Each state tends to run its judicial systems that differ from other states. Therefore, one state may have a very standardized system of record-keeping that may cover all states, and that may put the state in an excellent condition to charge any defendant from any state in the country. In many cases, trials tend to be very low in states with no adequate data on criminal cases and therefore allowing other states to try defendants even after they may have been found not guilty from other states, will help in bringing more culprits under book.
Even though double jeopardy prohibits accused people from getting tried again on the same case under the same facts. In my view, state courts should be given the power to work against the rule of double jeopardy because prohibition is not being against someone being given double punishment but against being put two times on jeopardy of which the accused person from the start was already put under punishment from the first trial (Rugh, 2014). Moreover, double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases and cannot be applied in administrative proceedings that is. For example, if a defendant is accused of a particular crime may not be put under immune from another civil lawsuit charges from any other victim of the similar crime.
In conclusion, just because a case ended in one state court does not necessarily mean that the same case is not open for a retrial in another state. A jury from another state may allow for a retrial of the same similar case that a defendant may not have been found guilty from another state.
Reference
Bartels, B. L., & Johnston, C. D. (2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science , 57 (1), 184-199.
Rugh, J. S. (2014). Double jeopardy: Why Latinos were hit hardest by the US foreclosure crisis. Social Forces , 93 (3), 1139-1184.
