 |
ความคิดเห็นที่ 27 |
Double jeopardy does not, by the way, give you a free pass to commit a subsequent crime if it should turn out that you were unjustly convicted, Hollywood scriptwriter fantasies notwithstanding. In the eponymous movie, Ashley Judd plays a woman wrongly convicted for her husband's murder; the man had faked his death and let his wife take the rap. Judd's character discovers the truth and tracks down the husband intending to kill him for his betrayal, reasoning that since she's been convicted once for his murder, double jeopardy would protect her from prosecution. Not so in real life: a crime, for double jeopardy purposes, consists of a specific set of facts. Change the facts and you've got a new crime – the murder of Richard Roe on Wednesday, December 8th, in New York City is not the same crime in double jeopardy analysis as the murder of Richard Roe in New York City on Friday, February 5th, even though it's the same victim. This seems to confuse people greatly, perhaps because it's unusual to discuss murdering the same person twice. But a moment's thought will make it clear: if the charge were, say, aggravated assault, no one would believe that a person convicted of beating Richard Roe to a pulp on December 8th could avoid another conviction for tracking down poor Rich again in February and whaling on him again.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080121055135/http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjeopardy.htm
ได้ความว่า
ฆ่านาย ก. วันพรุ่งนี้ กับฆ่า นาย ก. (คนเดิม) ปีหน้า ถือว่าเป็นคนละคดี คนละ facts ถึงแม้ว่าจะมีคนตายคนเดียวกันก็เหอะ
สรุป... กรณีอย่างในหนัง นางเอกคงต้องสู้คดีหลังด้วยข้อหาป้องกันตัวอย่างเดียว ใช้ double jeopardy ไม่ได้
| จากคุณ |
:
ชาเขียว   
|
| เขียนเมื่อ |
:
24 ม.ค. 53 06:43:15
|
|
|
|
|
)
