Replies

LexBaird said: "Therefore the idea that I would support laws that do, in fact, violate the 5th A. holds no water."

I asked WHY you support the protections of prohibition against double jeopardy and ex post facto. I can't understand WHY. What is so special about those limitations that you support them but you see nothing wrong with convicting a person of recidivism using a crime committed prior to the recidivism statute as a basis for the charge. We disagree about whether the three-strikes law, as applied to convictions prior to three-strikes legislation, is an ex post facto law. Fine. Let's disagree.

Now I am asking WHY you think it is so unfair to try a person twice for the same crime. If just one of two juries finds a person guilty why is that not enough for a conviction? WHY NOT hold a person accountable for behavior that is criminal even though it wasn't criminal at the time of commission? If the legislature decides that an act is criminal, why does it matter that the act was committed prior to enactment?

And finally ... WHY NOT exclude felonies committed prior to the enactment of three-strikes laws from consideration? What creates the need to pass a law which even some of us believes violates ex post facto?

What is your opinion of trying someone under federal law for violating a person's civil rights by killing them after they have been found not guilty in a state court of murder? Is that not double jeopardy? Or is there some nuance I have missed in this case also?

Double Jeopardy is when a person is "subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." IMO, the Federal "civil rights" retrying of cases for a particular offense that has already been acquitted is DJ, because it is merely a relabeling of the same circumstances. A case arising from facts made evident in the trial of an offense, however, may be used to support a trial for a different offense.

Why is DJ wrong? Because it opens citizens to abuse by a vindictive government. If there is no limit to the amount of times a person may be tried for an offense, the trials themselves may become a punishment, even if a conviction is never achieved.

Ex post facto is the making an action criminal retroactively. The trouble with this, of course, is that any action can be criminalized, including actions that were formerly mandatory, or laudatory (such as keeping weapons). Government by fallible men cannot be entrusted with this power. Three strikes does not make having a long criminal record a criminal act retroactively; it makes any subsequent adding to it a criminal act.

Why not exclude previous felonies? Because if you are going to accept previous convictions as evidence of recidivity on their face, it doesn't matter when they date from. Having previous convictions isn't the triggering action, getting a new one is. Since the purpose of the law is to jail career criminals, why wait for three more offenses before charging them?