Double Jeopardy

someone rams his car into someone else's vehicle causing the death of the male driver and seriously injuring the driver's wife. the case is brought to court where the other driver is charged with reckless imprudence resulting in physical injury and damage to property and is also charged with the same condition except that it results in homicide.

the supreme court dismisses the charge of homicide quoting the double jeopardy clause as the driver was already convicted of the first one resulting to physical injury and was given public censure as token punishment. the irony of the situation is that the driver admitted to the second case of reckless imprudence resulting slight physical injury thus leading to his conviction. he then moved to have the other case dismissed.

utterly ridiculous. the driver got away with homicide and was charged only for slight physical injury. why not convict the driver with homicide and dismiss the physical injury instead?

The death of Nestor Ponce due to the negligence of Jason Ivler was dismissed by the Supreme Court in this ruling. I guess I don't need years of study and a torturous bar exam to see that this is the stupidest line of reasoning. I fear for our humanity!


Anonymous said…
I hope this is the right category for my intro. My friends call me Anna. My interests involves perfecting life you can use [url=]article marketing robot bonus[/url]. I'll be reading more at

Popular posts from this blog

Incredible Hulk