Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Stop Ignoring Double Jeopardy
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3182015" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>It applies to the specific charges (or lesser included offenses) as brought by a specific sovereign. One act--say, possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony--can be illegal under statutes at both the state and federal levels, and prosecuted by both. That's the case in the article quoted above.</p><p></p><p>The case gerhard1 described, of civil rights charges against Klansmen (or the one I mentioned about the Rodney King prosecutions) is a little different. I think a lot of the "dual sovereignty" cases could be avoided if the feds would just stay in their lane, get back to the limited purposes of Article I, Section 8, and stop concerning themselves with ordinary criminal matters (I know, it'd be nice if we could all ride to work on flying unicorns, too). Civil rights (at least the ones in question) are a little different matter: they really <em>are</em> a federal matter in that they're defined by the Constitution, and applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. It's fed.gov's job to keep the other governments in line on that point.*</p><p></p><p>So, yes, dual-sovereignty can apply both to different and substantially-similar charges.</p><p></p><p></p><p>* As a personal opinion, I also think government agents at all levels <em>should</em> be subject to greater scrutiny and oversight, including liability to prosecution; they enjoy enormous power (and the concomitant ability to do harm), and it's an all-volunteer job, so nobody's forcing them to be subject to that scrutiny. Some of those charges, such as "deprivation of civil rights under color of law," can <em>only</em> apply to .gov agents, and again, that's because <em>only</em> .gov agents have the power in the first place; I like the idea of extra liability for those who abuse such power. But that's just me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3182015, member: 13624"] It applies to the specific charges (or lesser included offenses) as brought by a specific sovereign. One act--say, possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony--can be illegal under statutes at both the state and federal levels, and prosecuted by both. That's the case in the article quoted above. The case gerhard1 described, of civil rights charges against Klansmen (or the one I mentioned about the Rodney King prosecutions) is a little different. I think a lot of the "dual sovereignty" cases could be avoided if the feds would just stay in their lane, get back to the limited purposes of Article I, Section 8, and stop concerning themselves with ordinary criminal matters (I know, it'd be nice if we could all ride to work on flying unicorns, too). Civil rights (at least the ones in question) are a little different matter: they really [I]are[/I] a federal matter in that they're defined by the Constitution, and applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. It's fed.gov's job to keep the other governments in line on that point.* So, yes, dual-sovereignty can apply both to different and substantially-similar charges. * As a personal opinion, I also think government agents at all levels [I]should[/I] be subject to greater scrutiny and oversight, including liability to prosecution; they enjoy enormous power (and the concomitant ability to do harm), and it's an all-volunteer job, so nobody's forcing them to be subject to that scrutiny. Some of those charges, such as "deprivation of civil rights under color of law," can [I]only[/I] apply to .gov agents, and again, that's because [I]only[/I] .gov agents have the power in the first place; I like the idea of extra liability for those who abuse such power. But that's just me. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Stop Ignoring Double Jeopardy
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom