International Criminal Justice Report - Double Jeopardy and Case Study

This report delves into the concept of double jeopardy within the realm of international criminal justice. It begins by defining double jeopardy and its origins in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The report then explores the implications of double jeopardy, particularly its role in preventing retrials after an acquittal or dismissal of charges. A key element of the report is an examination of the Stanisic and Simatovic case, highlighting how the principles of double jeopardy were applied and interpreted. The report analyzes the legal arguments and outcomes, providing a comprehensive understanding of double jeopardy's application in international criminal law. The report also examines the role of double jeopardy in legal proceedings, offering a comprehensive overview of its significance within the international legal framework. The report concludes with a discussion of the implications of double jeopardy in international criminal justice, emphasizing its role in safeguarding individuals' rights and ensuring fair legal processes.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
International Criminal Justice
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

2INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The term ‘double jeopardy’ is not just a reference of a game show. In addition, it applies
to provisions that insure that someone can no longer be charged in criminal court for the same
crime more than once, thereby safeguarding the accused from the persistent threat of prosecution
after the case has been adjudged. It has a long criminal history, and the basis of this concept is
Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution (Rugh, 2014). According to many authors the defense
of double jeopardy is justified. Often, the defense of double jeopardy prohibits the state from
retrying an individual for the same crime after acquitting that person. Nor can the state many
willingly drop a case in order to start over after the trial has started. There is no danger under
U.S. law until the jury is sworn in a jury trial or until the first witness in a bench trial is sworn in.
Actions before adding liability will not preclude a future trial (Hernandez, 2011).
Many authors supported the concept of double jeopardy for some reasons. For instance,
if, due to lack of evidence, a judge dismisses a case at a preliminary hearing, this decision does
not prevent the government from bringing new charges for the same crime, because there will
not be a risk at that stage.
In the famous case of Stanisic and Simatovic case both of them has been suspended and
removed their respectable positions. Both of them were also prosecuted for war crimes. Not only
that initially in 2013 they were acquitted, but in 2015 even after appealing successfully the
verdict was changed by the ICTY Appeals Chamber. However, various scholars are of the view
that this case is not contrary to the widely accepted concept of double jeopardy and therefore it
can be said that double jeopardy is justified as it prohibits the state from retrying an individual
for the same crime after acquitting that person.

3INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Reference
Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty
Influence High School Graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Rugh, J. S. (2014). Double jeopardy: Why Latinos were hit hardest by the US foreclosure
crisis. Social Forces, 93(3), 1139-1184.