Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution Research Paper

Double risk Clause of the U.S. Constitution - Research Paper ExampleMany instances of confusion had risen from the interpretation of the words alike rudeness, where at times the courtroom casually applies the Clause to offenses that are non the same but obviously different (Dibianco, 1995). For example, premeditated murder is not the same as attempted murder or manslaughter armed robbery is not the same as robbery and yet under the so-called Blockburger test, the Court generally treats a greater offense as the same as each of its logically lesser-included offenses (Amar, 1997). With lawyers, judges and juries expressing a wide range of opinions pertaining to the Double Jeopardy Clause, arriving at a robust framework of decision making is near impossible. Nevertheless, for cases of murder of a single person, the proper application of the Clause with regard to fivefold trials at state and federal levels is relatively easier to ascertain. The following passages will illustrate this point by citing suitable scholarly sources.The words life or weapon in the Clause connote all criminal sanctions but seldom covers a petty civil suit about money. Similarly, the words same offense should be taken literally - murder means murder, not attempted murder. And the time period in Jeopardy effectively starts with an indictment and concludes with a befittingly error-free verdict. As law expert Akhil Reed Amar observes, the Double Jeopardy Clause itself does not exhaust the scope of constitutional principle involved in ten-fold prosecution and multiple punishment cases. Rather, the clean and simple rules of the Double Jeopardy Clause must be supplemented by several broader but more malleable commonsense principles protected by the Due Process Clause - and by certain other rules and principles rooted in the Sixth Amendment Jury Trial Clause. (Amar, 1997) adept of the mechanisms through which the judiciary ensures to provide the