Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Thinking Globally >> Double Jeopardy under threat http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287798443 Message started by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am

Title: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8111395

no matter what the issues of the case, the notion of having to face ANOTHER trial after being arrested, tried convicted and jailed for the offence already is a disgrace. The issue of double jeopardy should be a concern for all of us. It would be bad enough to be retried for an offence you were found innocent of nevermind being retried for one you had served a sentence already for.

Americans... supporters of the rule of law, but only when it is their law on their turf and with their rules. and they wonder why we despise their hypocrisy...

Australia should refuse to deport him.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:54am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

It is my understanding that double jeopardy is only an issue if you are found innocent.....someone who is convicted of a charge can still be prosecuted in another jurisdiction if there is sufficient evidence to upgrade the charges.....ie manslaughter to murder!!!

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:59am

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

No. double jeopardy applies to not being TRIED for the same offence more than once. unfortunately there are no international rules or treaties for double jeopardy, but it still doesnt make it right. originally alabama was planning to use the death penalty and QLD refused to even pass over evidence while that was on the table. but still you should only have to stand trial ONCE for an offence - even if it means crossing international boundaries.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 12:16pm

Double jeopardy or not, 18 months gaol was definitely NOT sufficient for the calculated crime of murder committed by this man...

This guy has an evil streak - he was filmed using bolt cutters to remove flowers placed by her parents on her grave - after they had resorted to chaining them down because someone had been systematically removing them...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8111395

Quote:

Watson grand jury result expected Monday

13:01 AEST Sat Oct 23 2010

Peter Mitchell

On the seventh anniversary of the heartbreaking Queensland scuba diving death of his daughter, Tommy Thomas stood outside an Alabama courthouse on Friday with a smile on his face.

Minutes earlier, in a secret hearing where Mr Thomas was a key witness, a grand jury decided if his former son-in-law, Gabe Watson, would be charged with murdering and kidnapping his daughter, Tina, on the young couple's 2003 Australian honeymoon.

Mr Thomas knew the result but under grand jury rules was banned from saying.

Don Valeska, a prosecutor and head of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime unit, also wore a smile but was also blocked from revealing what went on in the closed door hearing.

Grand juries, made up of 18 members of the public, play a key role in the American judicial system by allowing prosecutors to test the evidence before moving ahead with a full blown trial.

It will probably be on Monday when the world learns if Watson, who is currently serving an 18-month jail sentence in Queensland for the manslaughter of Tina after a plea deal with Queensland prosecutors, has been charged in Alabama with counts of murder for pecuniary gain and kidnapping.

Alabama alleges Watson tricked Tina into going to Australia to kill her and then hoped to pocket money from her insurance policy and sue the insurance company.

Alabama Attorney-General Troy King, who had vowed to prosecute Watson for murdering Tina after he was disappointed by the 18-month jail sentence handed down in Queensland, is expected to officially announce the grand jury's decision on Monday.

"Oh yeah," Mr Valeska said outside court when asked if he was satisfied with how the proceedings were run.

Asked if he felt positive about the outcome, Mr Valeska responded: "I always feel positive."

If the grand jury did charge Watson with murdering and kidnapping his wife, the 33-year-old bubble wrap salesman faces life imprisonment in Alabama if convicted of the charges.

Watson is due to be released from a Queensland jail mid-November and expected to be a free man but if charged in Alabama he will be escorted from Queensland to the US under guard and arrested once on American soil.

While Mr Valeska, Mr Thomas, Alabama police and other witnesses were inside the Jefferson County courtroom on Friday, Watson's lawyers Brett Bloomston and Joe Basgier, who were unable to present evidence at the grand jury, held a press conference outside the courthouse.

They said it was "ludicrous" their client could be prosecuted by Alabama for murdering his wife of just 11 days when the Queensland judicial system had already handed out its punishment.

"This case, these facts, have already been investigated and have already been adjudicated in the country where these acts happened," Mr Basgier said.

Watson, serving his sentence in Queensland's Borallon Correctional Centre, "was fully aware" of Alabama's attempts to charge him with murder, the lawyers said.

"While looking forward to being released in mid-November, of course he is very concerned he may come home to yet another murder charge based on this frivolous, quote, new evidence," Mr Bloomston said.

Tina's body was found exactly seven years ago while diving with Watson on a tourist diving expedition off the coast of Townsville while the couple were supposed to be enjoying their honeymoon.

Watson's lawyers alleged prosecutors timed the grand jury to coincide with the seventh anniversary of Tina's death to "inflame the passion" of the grand jury.

Mr Valeska rejected this, saying it was the only suitable date for the lead Alabama investigator, Lt Brad Flynn.

While Mr Thomas seemed buoyed by what happened inside the courtroom, he was close to tears when discussing the impact his daughter's death has had on his family.

"This not about me," he said.

"This about my daughter Tina and the fact we wanted to, from the very beginning, just know the truth about what happened to her and get justice for whatever reason may have caused her death."

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 12:24pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:59am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

Manslaughter and murder are two different offences....one is accidental and the other is deliberate.....if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone with murder then I think it is owed to the victim and their family to have the charges heard in a court of law….what sort of justice did the victim get when she was left at the bottom of the ocean by her husband…..if there is evidence this bloke murdered his wife I do not think he should get away with manslaughter!!!

The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them.
Lois McMaster Bujold, Diplomatic Immunity, 2002

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 12:35pm

The facts....

In her final moments, amid the terror and confusion, it isn't difficult to imagine the question that must have howled in Tina Watson's petrified mind.

Fifteen metres underwater and with her oxygen supply cut off, the dying novice scuba diver had looked to the person she trusted most - her husband of 11 days and an experienced diver and rescuer - to save her from the unthinkable.

Instead, he swam away.

Advertisement: Story continues below Why?

It's the same question many Australians and Americans, including Tina's family and friends, are now asking - demanding - from Queensland authorities after the man who admitted letting his new bride perish at the bottom of the Great Barrier Reef while on honeymoon five years ago was ordered to serve just 12 months behind bars.

With good behaviour, Gabe Watson, 32, will be back in the arms of his second wife in time for the next northern summer.

The 12-month sentence, delivered in the Brisbane Supreme Court on Friday, sent a ripple of shock across the Pacific that has quickly built to a tide of anger in Tina Watson's hometown of Alabama.

Her father Tommy Thomas said outside court there had been no justice for his 26-year-old daughter, and it seems many others agree.

Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick has asked to see Justice Peter Lyons' sentencing remarks with the view to appealing the punishment, while US authorities have also expressed their outrage over the leniency of the jail term.

Alabama's Attorney-General Troy King has also vowed to lead a mission to Queensland to lobby for an appeal.

If he isn't successful, he will push "America's legal boundaries to the limit" in an attempt to have Watson charged with murder for a second time when he is deported back to the US upon his release in 11 months' time.

When examined, no fault was found with Tina's breathing equipment.

How she lost air supply has never been proven, and in June last year at the conclusion of a coronial inquest into her death, Coroner David Glasgow said only two people knew what happened to her: Tina and Gabe Watson. Only one of them is still alive.

In his findings, Coroner Glasgow said a jury, if properly instructed, may have concluded Watson had turned off the air valve on his wife's air cylinder until she suffocated, switched the air back on, and let her sink to her death. He was charged with murder.

But unlike a jury, a coroner does not need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence.

If the Department of Public Prosecutions had pressed ahead with a murder charge and proceeded with a jury trial, it's possible Watson may have been acquitted and walked free.

How the DPP reached the decision to accept Watson's plea to the lesser offence of manslaughter was never discussed in open court.

What Crown prosecutor Brendan Campbell did say in the court room was that Watson's manslaughter plea was accepted on the basis that Watson failed in his duty of care for his wife as her dive buddy.

An experienced diver with a search and rescue dive qualification, Watson had performed a rescue years before when a fellow diver got into trouble underwater.
But on his honeymoon in October 2003, Watson said he panicked and thought it best to surface and seek help from a diving instructor.Mr Campbell said by doing so he had "virtually extinguished any chance of her survival."The Crown had pushed for a harsher sentence than the one Watson received. But not by much: five years to be suspended after 18 months. Instead, Watson was handed four and a half to serve 12 months, taking into account the 23 days he had already spent in custody awaiting Queensland justice.

Watson's barrister Steve Zillman successfully argued for leniency on the grounds that:

- Watson had made admissions to police which ultimately formed the foundation of the Crown case.

- He bore no responsibility for the delay of the matter through the court system.

- Although he was not charged with an offence until June last year, when he was charged with Tina's murder following a coronial inquest, Watson's case had had to endure "intense publicity in the media ... thousands of words have been written on the internet (and he) had been publicly accused of a crime he was not guilty of."

- He cooperated with Australian authorities by not protesting an extradition from the US and voluntarily returned to Australia before his charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter.

- He was not a citizen of Australia, so any time he served in an Australian jail "would be harder for him than it would be for an Australian citizen" since his family and friends live in the US.

"I believe probably the entire Australian nation as well as our nation back home shares in the shock that we've just seen," Tommy Thomas fumed outside court on Friday.

"It's total injustice, it's ludicrous what we have seen. This is in no way, shape or form even beginning to get justice for our daughter.

"It's an embarrassment to all Australians, it's an embarrassment to police here, the police in our country and to everyone who has been involved in this investigation.

"We believe that Gabe Watson murdered our daughter and we will continue to believe that."

The Queensland Attorney-General has 28 days to lodge an appeal.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/why-was-newlywed-left-to-

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 12:39pm

Quote:

Double jeopardy or not, 18 months gaol was definitely NOT sufficient for the calculated crime of murder committed by this man...

What a pile of crap.
Have you read the transcript of the trial and the transcript of the sentencing?

What are you suggesting? That we try and try again until people like you think that justice has been done based upon nothing but a "gut feeling"?

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 12:55pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 12:39pm:

Quote:

Double jeopardy or not, 18 months gaol was definitely NOT sufficient for the calculated crime of murder committed by this man...

Have you seen the 2-part Australian Story: -

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/unfathomableone/default.htm

Quote:

02/08/2010

It's seven years since a young American bride, Tina Watson, died during a honeymoon scuba dive on the Great Barrier Reef.

Her husband Gabe was accused of murder but eventually convicted and jailed for manslaughter, amidst controversy over the role of the Queensland DPP.

Back in Alabama, the authorities are convinced there's been a failure of justice and they still want Mr Watson back in the dock in his home state.

It remains a baffling case, involving the justice system of two countries, and a series of events that are hard to explain in any terms...

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/unfathomabletwo/default.htm

Quote:

09/08/2010

This week's program continues our story about young American bride Tina Watson who died seven years ago during a honeymoon dive trip on the Great Barrier Reef.

Her husband Gabe Watson was charged with murder but convicted only of manslaughter, sparking controversy about the role of Queensland prosecutors.

Tina's parents and authorities in her home state of Alabama have refused to let the case rest.

When Gabe Watson is released from jail in Queensland, he could still face a murder trial back home in the US.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by nichy on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:59am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

longy I think you will find that phil's definition of double jeopardy is correct, it only applies if a person is acquitted - they can then never be tried for that crime again, even if irrefutable evidence of their guilt surfaces at a later time.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by gizmo_2655 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm

And, after all, the conviction was for, basically, 'failing to render aid'....

The Court found that Watson 'should' have helped his wife to the surface when he realised she was in difficulty...

Which leaves open the question of DID he even notice she was in difficulty before she died???

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by bwood1946 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:15pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

WHO KNOWS

only the guy him self

the rest his assumptions buy Internet wannabes

;D ;D

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm

THE facts of Tina's death, other than the question of murder, are not in dispute. About 10.30am on October 22, 2003, she and Gabe were above the historic shipwreck Yongala, which lies 90 kilometres south-east of Townsville.

At least 43 divers had entered the water since sun-up from three dive vessels, Adrenaline, Spoilsport and Jazz II and were at various locations and depths.

Suddenly, Gabe Watson broke the waters above the wreck and screamed: ''Tina's gone down. I need help.''

The photograph showing his wife either dead or near death, lying prostrate on the bottom in 27 metres of water, emerged later. It would be of little forensic value, but its impact on the public psyche was devastating. It served to harden views that Gabe Watson was a cold, calculating killer.

Hearing Gabe's cries, Wade Singleton, the safety and rescue diver for the morning, plunged into the water. Singleton later told the coroner: ''We came down to the top of the wreck, which is approximately 15 metres [deep] … I proceeded to drop down to approximately 25 metres. And that's when basically I saw Tina on the bottom.''

Singleton's legs and fins were captured by tourist diver Gary Stempler, who took the now-famous photograph. It also shows Dawn Asano posing for the camera, with Tina's body in the background. Neither Asano nor Stempler was aware that a diver had sunk to the ocean floor beneath them.

At this point, Tina was beyond help. Even if she was still breathing, which seems unlikely as no expired gases are visible from her regulator, Singleton had no way to bring her up alive. They were in deep water with a pressure approximately 2.7 times that at the surface. Unless there is venting, which occurs naturally under water with normal breathing, her lungs would expand to 2.7 times their natural volume during the ascent, and like a bursting balloon, be destroyed in the process. The autopsy recorded the grim results: ''Radiology: … florid evidence of air embolism.''

Townsville police issued a standard media report later in the day, advising that a tourist had drowned accidentally off a dive boat. They had no suspicions. Five days

later, with his mother, Glenda, now in Townsville, Gabe gave to a routine police investigation his account of what happened.

''[After entering the water and descending] we both realised this current's a lot stronger than what we feel comfortable diving in … I turned to look at her at about the same time as she was turning to me.''

Gabe said he took Tina's hand and she gave him a ''thumbs up'', signalling a return to the comparative safety of the anchor line. ''So I started swimming [with Tina in tow].'' Almost immediately, she started to sink. He signalled to her to inflate her buoyancy vest. ''I know she squeezed it,'' he said, ''but whether she squeezed it hard enough or didn't squeeze the right thing or it wasn't working I don't know … thoughts were going through my head … 'I'm gonna get her, get her back to the anchor rope and she can either pull herself up it or she can hold it until I can go get somebody'.

''[Then] … her hand hit my mask [and] it knocked my mask sideways.''

Gabe describes how he cleared his mask, a procedure that usually requires both hands. ''I had to let go,'' he says.

Mask clear, he turned to his wife, but she remained out of reach. Finally, he decided to surface for help. ''I thought, 'Well, you know, I'm halfway down, if I go all the way down I can't come back up quick just because of how deep it is,' so I thought 'Well I'll just turn, shoot back to the anchor rope'.''

He surfaced and his statement says: ''I remember getting to the top, ah yanking my mask off, you know spitting out my regulator or not even have it in. I don't know, um, and just yelling, you know, 'Tina's gone down … I need help.' ''

American Dr Stanley Stutz, who was on the dive, saw the couple in difficulty. He gave an account to the coroner via video link and made written statements to police. At the time of the dive he was working as a specialist in emergency medicine at Townsville General Hospital.

''I was about five metres under water, and something caught the corner of my eye and I looked over and I saw a woman in distress,'' he says. ''She was on her back, arms out to the side. She reminded me of Jesus on a cross.''

Stutz says he then saw another diver ''embrace'' Tina, for a short time - five or 10 seconds - and he thought this person would assist her to the surface. ''Then they split apart. I don't know why … [the other diver] went towards the surface. I assumed to find help. [Tina was] sinking looking straight up at me. It was terrible.''
Dr Stutz by his own estimate was six metres from the stricken couple. Could he have saved Tina?

He told the coroner: ''I pushed my way past the other divers in my group down to my dive instructor to tell him, but he said to calm down and insisted I stay down with the group.''

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/death-on-reef-mystery-20100716-10eb1.html

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

After viewing the Australian Story, there can be little doubt that he knew she was in difficulty - it's just that he left her down there and appeared to take his time to get to the surface to raise the alarm...

Apparently, his behaviour was creepy-odd and defensive given the circumstances (and not just ordinary 'shock')...

In fact, he seemed to have acted in a pre-meditated manner by setting the stage for an equipment malfunction - purportedly due to putting the battery in the wrong way - one which is not technically possible because the device doesn't malfunction when the battery is around the wrong way: it simply doesn't work at all!

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by aussiefree2ride on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:25pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

Even with all your "apparentlys, seemed to have acteds, and purportedlys", one thing is clear, you DEFINITELY want to see this bloke hang.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:29pm

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:25pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

Even with all your "apparentlys, seemed to have acteds, and purportedlys", one thing is clear, you DEFINITELY want to see this bloke hang.

I have very little doubt that he acted in a premeditated and calculating manner - what he did on the day and since is nothing short of creepy!

He has been extremely insensitive - even vicious - in the way he handled her grieving family...

He clearly lacks a normal capacity for empathy: it was as if he had totally dehumanised her at the time - and has even grown to hate her (and her family) since...

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by gizmo_2655 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:30pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

Well Equitist, unless the Australian Story camera crew were there on the DAY, it's still a dramatisation....All those kind of reports are....

And remember, the QLD Courts initially declined to prosecute...several people drown while scuba diving every year in QLD.
It wasn't until her parents started talking to the media that any charges at all were brought.....

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:36pm

Quote:

Have you seen the 2-part Australian Story: -

Yes I did. But I'm not going to base my opinion of whether or not justice was done on what I saw in a TV documentary.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:36pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

I think you will find charges were not laid because the coroner needed to complete his investigation which took several years…..the prosecution originally charged Watson with murder but reduced the charge to manslaughter when it became apparent that a jury trial could result in acquittal…..I am not saying Watson was guilty of murder but he did kill his wife…..he pleaded guilty to the fact in a court of law!!!

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:37pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

It was clear from the Australian Story, that the people present on the boat that day were uneasy about his attitude and behaviour from the outset...

As you indirectly suggest, there probably wasn't much of an initial police inquiry because of the statistical frequency of deaths in diving accidents...

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by gizmo_2655 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:43pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

Yes....but remember, the police inquiry would have included interviewing the other people present on the boat......

So they didn't express their unease to the police at the time, but when offered the chance to be in a TV doco.....they were suddenly uneasy????

Doesn't THAT strike you as odd???

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by gizmo_2655 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:46pm

I'm not saying he didn't kill her....but you must admit, the coroner didn't find any evidence, the other divers didn't see anything and no one told the police of their suspicions, but where happy to talk about suspicions to an ABC camera team...years later????

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:50pm

nichy wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:59am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

No, I AM right. after all ask yourself the question: if you can only be tried once if found innocent then why arent other criminals retried and reconvicted for the same crime time and time again? simple answer: they arent.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:54pm

YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT...

This is NOT about the case and the merits of it. it is about a PRINCIPLE of justice that says that we can only be tried for a crime ONCE and once only. Yes, this will sometimes mean the guilty get off but it also prevents a state from continually trying a case until they get the result they want - if ever. We have plenty of examples within australia where people think the convicted person got off lightly. are you suggesting that when they are released that we have another go at them? put them through another trial? because if that is that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting here.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:56pm

Quote:

No, I AM right

Yes, Longy is correct. Double Jeopardy applies to defendants who have been found either guilty or innocent already.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:58pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:56pm:

Quote:

No, I AM right

Yes, Longy is correct. Double Jeopardy applies to defendants who have been found either guilty or innocent already.

It would be an odd system if you could be repeatedly found guilty for the same offence! But Im sure there are some posters that would agree with it.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by nichy on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 2:38pm

It's all a bit confusing.

Double jeopardy

The principle of criminal law called the double jeopardy rule is that no person should be punished more than once for the same offence and that no person ought to be placed twice in jeopardy (at risk) of being convicted. This means that a person who has been charged, tried and acquitted cannot be charged again for the same matter. However, often a new trial is ordered where for example, an appeal court overturns a conviction or where the first trial resulted in a hung jury or a mistrial.

Changes to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 mean that double jeopardy no longer applies for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and aggravated rape, provided certain circumstances are met. There are two situations in which a person can be re-tried for an offence for which they have previously been acquitted:

Where fresh and compelling evidence not provided at the original trial is produced. This evidence must be reliable and substantial.
OR

Where the acquittal is shown to be a ‘tainted acquittal’. A tainted acquittal occurs where a person was not convicted of an offence because an administration of justice offence was committed (i.e. perjury, fabrication or concealment of evidence, bribery, witness or juror intimidation or attempting to pervert the course of justice). Charges can be laid against the acquitted person if it is more likely than not that they would have been convicted but for the administration of justice offence.

http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s02.php

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by codswal on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 3:02pm

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

I couldnt agree more nem..she was left to die.. remember when he did finally surface..which by the way took him longer to do than the guy that rescued her.. he went to another boat and didnt swim across to the boat that she was being treated on untill they finally gave up and said she was dead.. he then swan over to see her.. it even got more bizarre back in America. he even had her body dug up and moved about 100 feet or something.sorry you guys that think he should be left in peace but her parents should have a say in this as well.he wasnt tried for murder in this country.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 4:08pm

nichy wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 2:38pm:

the reality tho is that DJ is never overturned in SA. there simply hasnt been a compelling reason to overturn a long-held judicial principle like DJ.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 5:07pm

If people cannot be retried how can they ever clear there name....retrials happen all the time when there is enough evidence to warrant another trial???

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Aussie on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 5:09pm

The concept applies to both acquittal and conviction.

:D

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Verge on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:17pm

Since when is 18 months justice for manslaughter? What a joke.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Aussie on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:30pm

Verge wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:17pm:

Since when is 18 months justice for manslaughter? What a joke.

Go and argue that on some other Thread.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Verge on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:33pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:30pm:

Verge wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:17pm:

Since when is 18 months justice for manslaughter? What a joke.

Go and argue that on some other Thread.

Ever stop and think it goes to the heart of the thread?

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:10pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 5:07pm:

If people cannot be retried how can they ever clear there name....retrials happen all the time when there is enough evidence to warrant another trial???

retrials ONLY happened when a conviction is squashed. acquittals are NOT squashed.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:15pm

Verge wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:33pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:30pm:

Verge wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 9:17pm:

Since when is 18 months justice for manslaughter? What a joke.

Go and argue that on some other Thread.

Ever stop and think it goes to the heart of the thread?

No, it actually misses the heart of the thread altogether, just as it does for virtually everybody. It seems as if circumstance clouds the judgement of not just a few or even the many but rather the vast majority. Does NOBODY see the PRINCIPLE involved or do you see only the circumstances you do not like (despite little to no verified information) and cast your principles away because they dont line up with one incident? Maybe the thread should be about what PRINCIPLES are. then we can REALLY have a debate about something very few know anything about.

trying to get a debate on a matter of principle in here is nigh on impossible. The reasons are disturbing. You all either have none or lack the intelligence and character to stand up for them. I am certainly glad none of you are in any position to affect society. then we'd REALLY be in trouble.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:22pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 5:07pm:

If people cannot be retried how can they ever clear there name....retrials happen all the time when there is enough evidence to warrant another trial???

retrials ONLY happened when a conviction is squashed. acquittals are NOT squashed.

I have never disputed this Longy......my point is when someone is acquitted they cannot be retried for the same crime....however the double jeopardy law does not apply to different jurisdictions or countries!!!

I understand your concerns but the law does not consider morality when it is applied.....it only considers the legal argument which allows the for charges to be laid if this man ever returns to America.....right or wrong this is the way it is!!!

Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by BigOl64 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 5:40am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

Longy

He is being tried in the states for conspiracy and murder, because the conspiracy occured inthe states not in Aus. He was tried and convicted for manslaughter for which he got 18 months. That'll teach him that killing is frowned upon in this country, prolly why he did it here and not at home.

QLD DPP refused to release any evidence to the US because they were going to impose the DP, friggen pussies. >:(

BTW, QLD was looking to remove double jeopardy only a few years ago, where defendants lied on the stand and it resulted in a not guilty finding; look up raymond carroll another filthy scumbag walking the streets.

Personally if Australia's legal system wasn't so pro-criminal, particuarly this case, the US would not have to retry a scumbag killer to seek justice for the victim and her family.

Our legal system makes us look weak on crime and totally pathetic in the eyes of the rest of the world. Just ask any victim of a serious crime if they were happy with the short sentence handed to the crim who committed the offence.

We should be ashamed to have another country retry and reconvict a scumbag we should have dealt with properly in the first place.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by codswal on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:21am

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:36pm:

Quote:

Have you seen the 2-part Australian Story: -

Yes I did. But I'm not going to base my opinion of whether or not justice was done on what I saw in a TV documentary.

they did speak to the people that were actually there and thats what makes it different.no he wasnt charged straight away because I am sure no one suspected he would murder his wife on their honeymoon, lets not forget they found nothing wrong with her diving gear. it wasnt untill this youngs mans bizarre behaviour back home that got people thinking even the police officer was on his side at first..if a murder was committed this young woman deserves justice dont you think?..

and if she wasnt then so does he.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by buzzanddidj on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:41am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 5:07pm:

If people cannot be retried how can they ever clear there name....retrials happen all the time when there is enough evidence to warrant another trial???

retrials ONLY happened when a conviction is squashed. acquittals are NOT squashed.

LOL !
But citrus fruit are ....

Did you mean ...

quashed ?
(To overthrow; to annul; to make void or declare invalid)

... or squashed ?
(1.
a. The act or sound of squashing.
b. The fact or condition of being squashed.
2. A crushed or crowded mass: a squash of people.
3. Sports A racket game played in a closed walled court with a rubber ball.
4. Chiefly British A citrus-based soft drink)

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 7:36am

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 5:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

well that was post full of assumotions, errors and laughable nonsense. it is presumptive that the conspiracy (if indeed there was one) occured in the USA and most certainly the murder did no (if there actually was one).

out legal system a joke? well since our crime rate is but a small portion of the american rate it is perhaps THEIR system that is a joke.

but yet again there is stil NO ONE willing to discuss the PRINCIPLE of double jeopardy. is everyone that small minded that they cannot rise above circumstance and engage principle?

double jeopardy isnt wrong because it might occasionally protect the guilty. instead it is RIGHT because it defends the innocent. you might one day find yourself in court facing a charge of which you are innocent. and when you are found not guilty you will be very glad of DJ so that the morons who charged you in the first place cannot do so again.

The rest of us wil be happy about DJ because it puts a greater responsibility on police and prosecutors to get it right the first time eg actually compiling evidence instead of hearsay and opinion. if you can get as many goes at it as you want why would police and prosecutors put much effort into a trial first time around? why would police bother about compelling evidence when they can just through it at a court and hope for the best and if it doesnt work then they can try harder next time?

DJ is a deeply ingrained principle of justice that has an enormous value.

I await the well-reasoned argument on principle. I however wont be holding my breath.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 7:44am

Quote:

I understand your concerns but the law does not consider morality when it is applied.....it only considers the legal argument which allows the for charges to be laid if this man ever returns to America.....right or wrong this is the way it is!!!

If he is ever deported (and there is a very good chance he wont be) the defence will also argue double jeopardy. The USA has a strong DJ principle ingrained in its legal system and his lawyers will argue that despite there being no international treaty on DJ that is no excuse for breaching a long-held principle in domestic law. 10 years ago that argument would be 100% effective. However since gitmo the US has happily gone down the road of using weak international law to its advantage. Gitmo is not covered by US human rights and constitutional protections. not that long ago that would have not mattered - the PRINCIPLE if human rights would have covered the legal loophole. but not now.

If you support watsons retrial in USA then you support legal loopholes. if you support legal loopholes then you support gitmo.

but if you were a man of principle you would support neither.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by codswal on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 8:18am

longy if you believe everything you write.. then you also believe there is no difference between manslaughter and murder.. they really mean the same thing.if he is tried in America it is DJ as you see it.as he has already served his time for the crime.or was the manslaughter charge a false charge as well? and this woman died of natural causes.....as there was nothing wrong with her gear as already proved.

seems to me that her family had a few doubts about this man from the very begining.. to say there was no conspiracy in America is very dubious.. he chose Australia he chose scuba diving.. both things she had no interest in.anyway I await the results if he doesnt get deported we get to keep him I guess.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by adelcrow on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 8:56am

He is an American citizen who was in some way responsible for the death of another American citizen abroad, the yanks can do what they like with him once he gets back there.
America is a strong democracy, if the people there have any sympathy for this dog they can protest in the streets and change the laws.
As for myself...I do not know the full details of the case but one thing is for certain, he abandoned his wife to her death and if I was her father I would want a trial once he got back to the USA.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by aussiefree2ride on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 9:31am

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:29pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:25pm:

Equitist wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 1:10pm:

Even with all your "apparentlys, seemed to have acteds, and purportedlys", one thing is clear, you DEFINITELY want to see this bloke hang.

And I have no doubt that your conclusions are a total figment of your sexism.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Jasignature on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 9:39am

As a Diver
( and this discussion heated up on DiveOz Forum too)
I can only HOPE that the USA gets their hands on him and submit him to the DEATH PENALTY !!!
Personally I wish we could cement his feet and drop him underwater amidst a school of Oceanic White-Tips (Sailor's Sharks) with but a tank of air for just 15 minutes to feel the pain.

Australia is a Kangaroo Court when it comes to people "Murdering" others.
A man can kill another and claim "mental" problems and get off.
What a croc this country has become.
I think a lot of EVIL people exploit the cultural history of Australia's CONVICT past in regards to BAD people who stole bread.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 10:21am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 7:44am:

Quote:

I actually agree with you Longy.....although I have doubts about this blokes guilt no one should have to be punished twice for the same crime.....any time America tramples on international justice they weaken the foundations of there own justice system.....look at the patriot act.....it is the most unpatriotic policy ever enacted.....America has shown they do not care about anyone but themselves and will even trample over there own constitution to control there citizens....remember Australia supported G.W.Bush and the actions at Guantanamo bay despite the obvious fact it was against the principles of justice and democracy.....John Howard and his government have nothing to be proud of!!!

:)

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Jasignature on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 10:31am

Seems Australian Courts are only able to process "PETTY" crime in regards to the Colonial Convict Past.
Any SERIOUS Murderer or Criminal should be passed onto the USA Justice system for some serious PUNISHMENT!

Too many serious crimes are going unpunished in Australia,
if we can't deal with it,
then I'm more than happy for the USA to take care of it.
>:(

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 2:36pm

adelcrow wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

I thought you for one might try a principle-based approach but you have sunk to the circumstance-approach. why is 'principle' so difficult?

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by aussiefree2ride on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 2:39pm

Ahhhhhhhhh, the hysteria of the lynch mob eh?

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 3:06pm

I don't care what the guy did or what his sentence was.

To re-arrest anyone who has already been tried and then put them on trial for the same offense again is just plain wrong.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 3:33pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 3:06pm:

I don't care what the guy did or what his sentence was.

To re-arrest anyone who has already been tried and then put them on trial for the same offense again is just plain wrong.

very true. why shoudl you go to jail twice for the same crime?

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Verge on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 4:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 2:36pm:

adelcrow wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

I thought you for one might try a principle-based approach but you have sunk to the circumstance-approach. why is 'principle' so difficult?

Principles go out the window when the penality doesnt fit the crime. Principles would have seen someone do more than 18 months for the taking of a life.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 4:57pm

Quote:

Principles go out the window when the penality doesnt fit the crime. Principles would have seen someone do more than 18 months for the taking of a life.

The average time served for manslaughter is around 5 years (around 17 for murder). Some serve less, some serve more, a few serve no time at all.

Unless you've read the transcript of the sentencing you're doing nothing but guessing.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 4:57pm

Verge wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 2:36pm:

adelcrow wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

I thought you for one might try a principle-based approach but you have sunk to the circumstance-approach. why is 'principle' so difficult?

Principles go out the window when the penality doesnt fit the crime. Principles would have seen someone do more than 18 months for the taking of a life.

I don’t know Verge.....if it was an accident and the accused was truly remorseful I do not see what destroying there life would do...it is not like they can become serial manslaughters is it.....the person who committed the manslaughter would have to carry the heavy burden of there actions for the rest of there life even if it was an accident....no price can be placed on human life.....including that of the accused!!!

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Deborahmac09 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 5:24pm

Gizmo, if this is the case I think it is, and it is.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25326275#slice-2

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by BigOl64 on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:04pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 7:36am:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 5:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47am:

Since the manslaughter occured and was well reported in my home town, I fairly sure I read the stories correctly.

The US is prosecuting him for conspiracy not manslaughter, so there is no DJ attached and if there is any, then his defence can argue that.

Im just telling you what has been reported but continue to attack me if it makes you feel smarter or feel better.

If you want a personal opinion here goes, Australia is as weak as piss when it comes to justice for victims and Im glad he is being tried in the states, where he will get what he deserves. They wouldn't have to try him for conspiracy if our DPP did their jobs competently and our judges weren't so pro-criminal.

BTW did read my other statement about QLD (labor) government attempting to suspend DJ in some cases? It isn't that ingrained, we have no absolute right to to anything in this country, remember.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:12pm

Quote:

and Im glad he is being tried in the states, where he will get what he deserves

Time served for serious crimes isn't that much different between the US, the UK and here.

While they may be sentenced to apparently a much longer time in jail in the US, they only expect to serve half of that sentence (Federal offenses like kidnap and tampering with the mail being exceptions). Their non-parole periods aren't binding like here.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Aussie on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:40pm

Quote:

The US is prosecuting him for conspiracy not manslaughter

I'm not sure that is right, but assuming it is......

With whom did he conspire?

:D

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:44pm

Quote:

With whom did he conspire?

Himself?
It's a "thought crime".

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Jasignature on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 11:37pm

Actually,
how better to murder someone than to do it overseas ;)

Australia is still culturally fixated with the old Convict 'emotional' sympathy of poor English/Irish stealing bread and other petty crimes.
BUT!
what we are seeing is an exploitation of this pride in being compassionate to the petty criminal, by serious and I mean SERIOUS Criminals who murder, rape, torture, etc
Even the ideal of this being the Lucky Country is lost on those who break into houses and steal from others and then sue if they get clobbered with a baseball bat. Its not as if there is dire poverty due to ones own self-destructive habits, in this country - where there is always work. True?

I hope he gets the Death Penalty and as for Double Jepardy? Well people get sentenced in this country for murder, then they appeal and then they get a lessened sentence or even parole straight up - if not off entirely! So where's the double-standard with the USA following up a Kangaroo Court?

Sydney is now rife with guns and violent murders left right and centre and most just claim "Mental" problems and get off scott free after shooting someone innocent. If the Law can't deal with the violence, then let the "National Guard" (we do have one, don't we? :-?) or Army gun down any stoopid idiot who thinks he is tough enough to pull a trigger too. Too many INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING.
>:(

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by BigOl64 on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 3:54am

Aussie wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

Quote:

The US is prosecuting him for conspiracy not manslaughter

I'm not sure that is right, but assuming it is......

With whom did he conspire?

:D

I don't friggen know, may bee you should do some basic research on the matter instead of posting emoticons.

You seem to think that trying to humiliate the messager serves to bolster your own argument. This may work in the school yard of your mind, but not so much in the real world.

But I very much doubt the US prosecuters will lay out their entire case for you to pick over before it actually commences, so you might have to show some level of maturaty and wait.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Aussie on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 4:27pm

Quote:

I don't friggen know, may bee you should do some basic research on the matter instead of posting emoticons.

Hey, it was not me who said the US were charging him with conspiracy.....that was you. Here, in Queensland, if you are charged with conspiracy, there will be another with whom you will be alleged to have conspired.

Oh, and just for you...............

8-)

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:35pm

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

since when do people 'get off' because of mental problems? for starters, the range of mental illnesses that apply are very small and very difficult to prove. and you dont go free. you get detained in a hospital with no rights to leave. It is little different to prison except that you dont get to leave - ever.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:37pm

Verge wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 2:36pm:

adelcrow wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

I thought you for one might try a principle-based approach but you have sunk to the circumstance-approach. why is 'principle' so difficult?

Principles go out the window when the penality doesnt fit the crime. Principles would have seen someone do more than 18 months for the taking of a life.

Clearly you have NO IDEA what a 'principle' is. 'principles' are the standards you apply regardless of the circumstances even when they are diamettically to how you wished things turned out. Your 'principles' are nothing more than 'conveniences'.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:41pm

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 3:54am:

Aussie wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

Quote:

The US is prosecuting him for conspiracy not manslaughter

I'm not sure that is right, but assuming it is......

With whom did he conspire?

:D

I could always hope that you actually have an opinion on DOUBLE JEOPARDY and not just this case. Is that possible?

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:56pm

Quote:

since when do people 'get off' because of mental problems?

The amount of people who think the insanity plea is used by a large proportion of defendants, that it's usually successful and that it results in the person walking free is amazing.

It's just one of the many misconceptions you find on forums and messageboards here in Australia.

A few of the commonly found misconceptions are:

* For serious crimes, people serve less jail time than what they used to.
* The remissions system ("Time off for good behavior") is still used in Australia.
* In the good old days, life used to mean life.
* A true life sentence can't be given these days.
* Parole is automatically granted on the first attempt.

There's heaps more...

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 8:27pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:

Quote:

since when do people 'get off' because of mental problems?

The amount of people who think the insanity plea is used by a large proportion of defendants, that it's usually successful and that it results in the person walking free is amazing.

It's just one of the many misconceptions you find on forums and messageboards here in Australia.

* For serious crimes, people serve less jail time than what they used to.
* The remissions system ("Time off for good behavior") is still used in Australia.
* In the good old days, life used to mean life.
* A true life sentence can't be given these days.
* Parole is automatically granted on the first attempt.

There's heaps more...

you made more than a few errors there.

Parole is NOT automatic.
A true life sentence CAN be given
The remissions system has been scaled back and how you can think having a system that rewards good behaviour in a prison is BAD is beyond me.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 8:34pm

This bizarre case reminds me of another one - where a guy managed to kill two brides before he got caught...

The Forensic Psychiatrist's opinion was fascinating albeit disturbing...

http://cpcabrisbane.org/Kasama/1999/V13n4/Keir.htm

Quote:

Thomas Keir convicted at last

Australia’s justice system has finally caught up with Thomas Andrew Keir. On September 17, 1999 he was found guilty of murdering his first wife, Jean Angela Keir (nee Strachan), a Filipina, in February 1988, ten years before his arrest.

During the six-week trial in Sydney’s Supreme Court, the jury, comprised of nine men and three women, heard evidence of Keir’s irrational jealousy, his overpowering possessive controlling nature and Jean’s fear of his brutal dominance, death threats, and manipulation of their child. Forensic evidence of DNA testing revealed that the human bone fragments found in 1991 buried in the backyard of Keir’s home, were from Jean’s body.

Thomas Keir has maintained his innocence throughout. He says Jean ran off with a lover. He also claimed they spoke on the phone several times since she disappeared and her belongings were taken from the house while he was away. The jury however accepted the prosecution’s case that when moving her body years after he killed Jean, Keir had overlooked the tiny bones. They came to this conclusion unenlightened of the fact that Keir had once before been tried for murder.

The victim in that case was his second wife, Rosalina Canonizado Keir. In April 1991, after 18 months of marriage, Rosalina was found in their burned-out home strangled with a lamp cord and set alight. Rosalina, also a Filipina, was a distant relative to Jean. Keir pleaded not guilty and was acquitted of Rosalina’s murder due to lack of evidence. But, it was during his time in jail awaiting trial for Rosalina’s murder that he revealed to another inmate where he’d buried the body of his first wife, Jean. Later, acting on this information, police found the bone fragments.

Thomas Keir’s sentence for the murder of his first wife, Jean, is still to be determined. On December 10, 1999 his case was heard for sentencing but the trial judge reserved his decision until February 2000 — possibly in the second week — no precise date has been set as we go to press.

In court on December 10, the day was taken up with submissions from both the prosecution and the defence on sentencing.

The defence called forensic scientist, Dr Bruce Westmore who testified that Keir had no mental illness, no anti-social personality disorder or depression — but rather, he had a personality which included extreme jealousy bordering on the pathological. He also testified that Thomas Keir was likely to be dangerous in other intimate relationships and that because he had failed to acknowledge what he had done, Keir was a poor prospect for rehabilitation.

He also testified that Keir had previously received psychiatric treatment due to stress at the time he had been charged with killing Rosalina. So despite Keir’s acquittal for killing Rosalina, her death was very much acknowledged and discussed in court.

In discussions about how dangerous Keir might be and what might be an appropriate sentence, the judge spoke about how such offences, which were committed by apparently otherwise normal men within relationships, were very serious because they breached the trust of the relationship and because they reflected a view that such men had an entitlement over their wives, or ownership of them, and this was morally objectionable.

Jean’s mother, Christine Strachan, told the press, "We are not looking for revenge but justice. Justice for Jean and for her son who has lost a beautiful and loving mother — and for her sisters and brother who loved her very much — and for my husband and myself. We shall never get over this loss for as long as we live."

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 8:36pm

http://cpcabrisbane.org/Kasama/2002/V16n1/Keir.htm

Quote:

Appeal Court grants Thomas Keir retrial

On 29 February 2000, Thomas Andrew Keir received a sentence of 24 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years, for the murder of his first wife Jean Strachan Keir in 1988. But now, almost two years later, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial which is scheduled for July 2002.

Justices Roger Giles, Greg James and Peter McClellan ruled that Supreme Court Justice Michael Adams mis-directed the jury over the DNA evidence in Keir's trial.

In his judgement on sentence, Justice Adams said that Keir’s "arrogant, controlling behaviour in respect of his wife, demonstrated from time to time by his manhandling of her, his concealment of her contraceptive pills and his threats of murder, showed that he considered her as his property to be dealt with as he thought it right".

At Keir’s trial, evidence was given by a forensic biologist that DNA analysis of bone fragments found outside Keir’s residence showed that, "it is approximately 660,000 times more likely to obtain this particular DNA profile found in the bones if it comes from a child of [the biological parents of Jean Strachan Keir] than from a child of a random mating in the Australian population."

However, the trial judge instructed the jury that there was, "a 660,000 chance to one that these bones were not those of Jean Keir."

"Those are two very different things in statistical terms," senior counsel for Keir, Paul Byrne, told the appeal hearing. And, because the judge had invited the jury to view the DNA evidence as discrediting a key defence witness who claimed to have seen Jean eight months after her alleged murder, Keir was effectively deprived "of a chance that the jury might have looked at the sighting evidence as grounds to acquit," he said.

Michael Sexton, the NSW Solicitor-General, conceded the DNA evidence had been wrongly presented, but argued the Crown case was overwhelming when all evidence was taken into account.

Jean’s mother, Christine Strachan, was in court. After the appeal hearing she told the press, "Now, 14 years after she disappeared, we have to go through the whole thing again. I cried buckets during that trial ... all that heartache. I'm so disappointed, I cannot believe it."

Another mother is also grieving over the loss of her daughter. Ester is the mother of Rosalina Canonizado who was Keir’s second wife. In April 1991 Rosalina was found strangled in her bedroom, her body set alight. Keir was tried for her murder, but acquitted. Both Filipinas, Jean and Rosalina quite coincidentally were second cousins.

— with a report from the Sydney Morning Herald, 22 Feb 2002.

[quote]STOP PRESS: The retrial of Thomas Andrew Keir commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 5 August, 2002. A jury of 8 men and four women found Keir guilty of the murder of his first wife, Jean Angela Strachan Keir. Justice Kirby on 21 March, 2003, sentenced Keir to 22 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. Keir will therefore be eligible for release on parole on 20 February, 2014, two years earlier than the original sentence.

There are related articles in these issues of "Kasama":

* In Memory of Rosalina Canonizado, V15n2, April/June 2001;
* In Remembrance – Memorial Mass & Rosalina’s family seeks justice, V14n2, April/June 2000;
* Justice for Jean, V14n1, Jan/March 2000;
* Forum Tackles Violence Against Filipinas in Australia, V14n1, Jan/March 2000;
* Thomas Keir Convicted At Last, V13n4, Oct/Dec 1999.

[/quote]

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by life_goes_on on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 8:46pm

Quote:

you made more than a few errors there.

I should have had made it clearer, those were the commonly found misconceptions.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 6:19am

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 8:46pm:

Quote:

you made more than a few errors there.

I should have had made it clearer, those were the commonly found misconceptions.

yeah sorry about that. posts sometimes arent clear about what is intended. Irony amd sarcasm particualrly translate rather poorly. But I agree with you that most people's understanding of the law is very very poor and limited to what they glean from american TV shows.

Title: Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Post by Equitist on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 3:39pm

Update on this case: -

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/honeymoon-killer-in-immigration-limbo-20101111-17o8t.html

Quote:

'Honeymoon killer' in immigration limbo

November 11, 2010 - 10:04AM

AAP

US prosecutors say they have "no idea" how long it will be before Australian authorities receive written assurances honeymoon killer Gabe Watson will not face the death penalty if he's tried in America over the death of his wife Tina.

Watson is in limbo after being released from a Queensland jail on Thursday morning and handed over to immigration officials, as the Australian government awaits a formal assurance from the US federal authorities he won't face the death penalty if convicted in his home state of Alabama.

Authorities in Alabama want to try the 33-year-old former bubblewrap salesman for murder and kidnapping over the honeymoon drowning death of his new bride during a scuba dive off Townsville in 2003.

He completed an 18-month prison term on Thursday for her manslaughter.

Alabama Attorney-General Troy King has promised Watson will not face the death penalty, but the Australian government is now seeking a similar assurance from US Attorney-General Eric Holder.

Watson's Australian solicitor Adrian Braithwaite said he's been told that could take weeks or months.

Alabama's top prosecutor Don Valeska said Australian officials would not accept his personal assurances that his state would seek a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without parole if Watson was convicted.

"We have no idea as to the timespan," Mr Valeska told the Seven network on Thursday.

Asked if written assurance would be provided that Alabama authorities would not seek the death penalty, he added: "Yes, I would hope so".

"I heard (Immigration Department spokesman) Sandy Logan say that.

"Of course, he is going to have to contact the (federal) Justice and State Departments in Washington.

"I could have sent him written proof, but he wants it from them. I can't answer for them or for him so, hopefully, he will get it and we can move on.

"Any prosecutor is interested in the maximum punishment for a crime if it is put to a grand jury. Life without parole."