In 2005, Mario Celaire was convicted of murder of his ex-girlfriend, after being acquitted of the same charge three years prior. The victim’s mother described it as “a victory for everyone who feels that they have been let down by the justice system.” This would not have been possible if not for the abolishment of double jeopardy by the UK government. In my speech I will be addressing two main questions: why we must abolish double jeopardy and how we will do this.
The UK government passed laws in the mid-2000s that abolished double jeopardy, and that is exactly what the government is proposing to do. Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same charge following a legitimate acquittal or…show more content… This can easily be solved by our proposal. As previously mentioned, the abolishment of double jeopardy is not a blanket rule. For most crimes, it would still apply so judges would need to be just as careful. In the specific cases where it applies, the crimes in question are extremely serious and the state would be expected to provide professional, well-trained judges who can act in a responsible manner, preventing, as far as possible, misjudgments. However, no matter how careful we are, there will be anomalies and this is precisely what the abolishment of double jeopardy is aimed at: to correct past misjudgments through examination of new evidence. No matter how small the proportion of misjudgments represent, the state is responsible for convicting every deserving individual for crimes they have committed. Therefore, the resources involved in the process is a price we are definitely willing to pay. The government sees correcting our mistakes more important than a relatively small amount of time, money and labour, which is the necessary