Australian Politics Forum - Double Jeopardy under threat

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #15 - 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:

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???

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!

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.....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Life_goes_on Gold Member Offline Posts: 4772 400kms south of Yobsville, Qld Gender:	Re: Double Jeopardy under threat Reply #16 - 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.
Back to top	"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013 Num num num num. IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #17 - 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:

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???

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!

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.....

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!!!

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #18 - 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:

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???

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!

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.....

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...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #19 - 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:

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???

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!

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.....

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...

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???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16010 South West NSW Gender:	Re: Double Jeopardy under threat Reply #20 - 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????
Back to top	"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition. It's similar to a strawman fallacy" Bobbythebat IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #21 - 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:

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #22 - 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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Life_goes_on Gold Member Offline Posts: 4772 400kms south of Yobsville, Qld Gender:	Re: Double Jeopardy under threat Reply #23 - 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.
Back to top	"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013 Num num num num. IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #24 - 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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

nichy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #25 - 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

Back to top

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&

IP Logged

codswal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2070

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #26 - 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:

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???

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!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Double Jeopardy under threat
Reply #27 - Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 4:08pm

nichy wrote 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

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

philperth2010 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21097 Perth Gender:	Re: Double Jeopardy under threat Reply #28 - 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???
Back to top	If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39810 Gender:	Re: Double Jeopardy under threat Reply #29 - Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 5:09pm The concept applies to both acquittal and conviction.
Back to top	IP Logged