Ethics: What do you think of this case?

[Cecilie1200]

A good lawyer should be able to get him off on appeal because of double jeopardy.

Seems like a lot of people here don't understand double jeopardy.

He can't be charged with the same crime twice; doesn't mean he can't be charged with two different crimes in relation to the same act. First time, he was charged with assault, apparently. This time, he's charged with manslaughter, which is a different crime.

So after he serves his time for manslaughter, he can be tried and convicted for first degree murder?

I understand your point. I still believe a good lawyer cam make a case based on double jeopardy and win. Why? Because assault, manslaughter, and Murder and usually considered differ levels of charges for the same act (crime). Usually someone is convicted on just one of these levels for the same act, not multiple levels.

Your belief about these crimes is in error. They are not considered "different levels for the same act". They are different crimes.

 

[JoeMoma]

A good lawyer should be able to get him off on appeal because of double jeopardy.

Seems like a lot of people here don't understand double jeopardy.

He can't be charged with the same crime twice; doesn't mean he can't be charged with two different crimes in relation to the same act. First time, he was charged with assault, apparently. This time, he's charged with manslaughter, which is a different crime.

So after he serves his time for manslaughter, he can be tried and convicted for first degree murder?

I understand your point. I still believe a good lawyer cam make a case based on double jeopardy and win. Why? Because assault, manslaughter, and Murder and usually considered differ levels of charges for the same act (crime). Usually someone is convicted on just one of these levels for the same act, not multiple levels.

Your belief about these crimes is in error. They are not considered "different levels for the same act". They are different crimes.

Okay

 

[JoeMoma]

A good lawyer should be able to get him off on appeal because of double jeopardy.

Seems like a lot of people here don't understand double jeopardy.

He can't be charged with the same crime twice; doesn't mean he can't be charged with two different crimes in relation to the same act. First time, he was charged with assault, apparently. This time, he's charged with manslaughter, which is a different crime.

So after he serves his time for manslaughter, he can be tried and convicted for first degree murder?

I understand your point. I still believe a good lawyer cam make a case based on double jeopardy and win. Why? Because assault, manslaughter, and Murder and usually considered differ levels of charges for the same act (crime). Usually someone is convicted on just one of these levels for the same act, not multiple levels.

Your belief about these crimes is in error. They are not considered "different levels for the same act". They are different crimes.

Maybe so, Maybe not.

The Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy

"Multiple Punishment
Prosecutors often file multiple charges against defendants for the same set of facts. For example, a prosecutor might charge someone with both assault and assault with a firearm for pointing a weapon at someone else. In that situation, if a jury were to convict the defendant of both offenses, double jeopardy might well block the judge from handing down a separate sentence for each crime."

 

[BreezeWood]

Paul Proctor was originally jailed for 18 months for wounding Mark Wilkie with a single punch back in August 2000.

Wilkie, 27, was left paralysed and needed round the clock care until he died in October 2017, following the attack.

The pair had argued over ordering a taxi for two women after leaving a pub.

He has subsequently been put behind bars for another two years and 10 months.

in florida they had it right, not who started the fight but who inflicted the the damage ...


- and needed round the clock care until he died in October 2017

it should have been 2nd degree murder with time served minus 17 years for the sentence. due to the severity of the injury. or the electric chair.

 

[beautress]

Thug jailed for manslaughter after his victim died 17 years on from attack

Summary: A man punched another man in a dispute over chicks, after leaving a bar.

The Victim was paralyzed.

The assailant went to Prison and served his time for the assault/paralysis.


17 years later, the paralyzed man died. The assailant was sent BACK to Prison, for Manslaughter.


I'm interested in all of the perspectives, on this.

Thanks!!

Looks like double jeopardy

The prospect of a potential shorter life should have been addressed in his first trial

Yeah, I'm starting to lean this way conceptually. If the Judge fucked up and didn't include the shortened life-span in their first determination, then that's on the Judge. The man served the sentence, that makes him square with the Law to go ahead and start anew. Not sure why this flies, exactly.

If the victim of a crime dies of injuries inflicted, the charge becomes murder. the man who served a lesser crime got his free ride for the crime's appearance. But when the victim died of his injuries, the perpetrator became a murderer in the eyes of the law and in fact. Not only did the victim die of his injuries, his life of confinement was unbearable to think of. America does not let murderers get off scot free, at least not on purpose.