Is this really legal?

[INGunGuy]

I was reading this today, and I just cant see how this is legal, I mean doesnt double-jeopardy keep this from happening? I think this scum deserves to die in prison, but this just isnt right...

FOXNews.com - Indiana court extends convicted rapist's sentence

INGunGuy

 

[Eddie]

Yes. He appealed his sentence and brought it before the appelate court to review. They reviewed and over ruled the lower court. It's unusual for them to increase a sentence on appeal, but they have that power the same as they do to reduce the sentence on appeal.

 

[steveh_131]

I think this is fantastic.

Maybe some of these a-holes will think twice before they clog up our court system with more frivolous appeals.

 

[dross]

Yeah, the government needs all the help it can get.

 

[Archbishop]

My very limited understanding is that yes it's legal. double-jeopardy means the exact same case tried twice. So if you're accused of holding up a bank, go to trial and are found not guilty that's the end of it. They can't retry the same case, but if a new evidence is found they can retry you again with the new evidence.
So in the case of the appeal your telling the judge, re-decide my case, because I don't think I got a fair shake based on...... whatever. The judge decides the first trial was correct to not allow such and such evidence for you and that's the end of that appeal, but if the judge decides that your evidence should have been added to you're first trial then he reconsiders all the old evidence factored in with the "new" evidence and comes to a new verdict. "Even if the verdict is the same as the last."
Hopefully I'm describing it clearly and accurately.

 

[EvilleDoug]

Congratulations for spending the citizens money on appeal, here is you reward - 25 more years. Now pass the word to all you know and let them know that crime does not pay, and if they think they can sit in prison for a while, be a good boy or girl and then get out early, they need to think again. Hooray for the Judge who added to this scum bags sentence.

Much Bacon for the Judge (exploding fireworks here)

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Anyone like that needs to be hanged in the middle of downtown.

 

[Eddie]

My very limited understanding is that yes it's legal. double-jeopardy means the exact same case tried twice. So if you're accused of holding up a bank, go to trial and are found not guilty that's the end of it. They can't retry the same case, but if a new evidence is found they can retry you again with the new evidence.
So in the case of the appeal your telling the judge, re-decide my case, because I don't think I got a fair shake based on...... whatever. The judge decides the first trial was correct to not allow such and such evidence for you and that's the end of that appeal, but if the judge decides that your evidence should have been added to you're first trial then he reconsiders all the old evidence factored in with the "new" evidence and comes to a new verdict. "Even if the verdict is the same as the last."
Hopefully I'm describing it clearly and accurately.

What they do is for each crime there is a range of years that the convicted person can be sentenced to, for example 2 to 8 years. Then there is an advisory sentence, for example 2 to 8 years with an advisory sentence of 4 years. So it is assumed that the average offender will get 4 years. At sentencing, which occurs after the defendant has been found guilty, the judge considers agravating versus mitigating circumstances. Agravators could for example result from an offender having a long criminal history, torture of victims, abusing a position of power or anything that the judge identifies as something that made the crime worse than average. Mitagators are things that make the crime "less worse" than the average offender. The judge might identify mitigators like an offendor pleading guilty, not having a criminal history, hardship on the criminal's dependents or anything else that the judge feels weighs towards a lesser sentence. The judge states his findings and assigns a sentence.

When a defendant appeals the sentence, the Appelate Court is allowed to alter the sentence if they feel the judge improperly weighed the aggravators and mitigators; a good example where the Appelate Court might revise a sentence would be a judge giving an defendent a maximum sentence when there were no aggravators and the defendent was a first time offendor who immediately pled guilty and took responsibility for the crime.

This guy rolled the dice, hoping for a lighter sentence and he crapped out.

 

[SavageEagle]

+1/2 for the judge! Only 1/2 because he should have been hanged, but hey. You can't always get what you want!

 

[Joe Williams]

My very limited understanding is that yes it's legal. double-jeopardy means the exact same case tried twice. So if you're accused of holding up a bank, go to trial and are found not guilty that's the end of it. They can't retry the same case, but if a new evidence is found they can retry you again with the new evidence.
So in the case of the appeal your telling the judge, re-decide my case, because I don't think I got a fair shake based on...... whatever. The judge decides the first trial was correct to not allow such and such evidence for you and that's the end of that appeal, but if the judge decides that your evidence should have been added to you're first trial then he reconsiders all the old evidence factored in with the "new" evidence and comes to a new verdict. "Even if the verdict is the same as the last."
Hopefully I'm describing it clearly and accurately.

You can, however, be tried for the same act twice, in two different courts. For example, commit one bank robbery, be found innocent in one court, but then be tried again and found guilty in another court.

How can this happen? Pop quiz

 

[singlestacksig]

You can, however, be tried for the same act twice, in two different courts. For example, commit one bank robbery, be found innocent in one court, but then be tried again and found guilty in another court.

How can this happen? Pop quiz

Fed & State.

 

[Eddie]

Fed & State.

Remember Rodney King? That is what happened to the officers involved in that case. The state tried them and found them not guilty, so the feds stepped in and charged them with a federal crime and tried them again.

 

[Donnelly]

Once in state court and the other in federal court.

Do I win?

 

[Bill of Rights]

You can, however, be tried for the same act twice, in two different courts. For example, commit one bank robbery, be found innocent in one court, but then be tried again and found guilty in another court.

How can this happen? Pop quiz

Criminal and civil, a la OJ.

 

[j706]

I think this is fantastic.

Maybe some of these a-holes will think twice before they clog up our court system with more frivolous appeals.

I could not agree more.

 

[INGunGuy]

I guess that I wasnt looking at it fully. Yea I am glad the guy got more time in the can, but I was unaware that a appellate court could increase the penalty after you were tried, convicted and sentenced.

INGunGuy

 

[38special]

Criminal and civil, a la OJ.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Feds can try.
State can try.

Both can try criminally, and civilly, if they feel like it.
Civil standard of proof is way less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's preponderance of the evidence - given the evidence, is it simply more likely than not that you're the responsible party who committed the tort?

Unlikely that either State or Fed would try you civilly if they couldn't get you criminally, but the victims' family sure as hell will, bet your life on that, would-be felons.

O.J. - beat double-homicide just to be found civilly guilty of wrongful death - no penalty of incarceration, but millions to be paid, still to be paid.

I know he did it, but I'm not sure why... I mean, look at Juice in Naked Gun: 33& 1/3 - that's one smiling, happy man. She must have REALLY gotten under his skin... imagine, beating murder, double murder, of all things, just to wind up in jail for accosting someone selling memorabilia of you. Holy hell, Juice, you really done GOOD on that one, bud. Took that 'get-right-outta-jail-free' card and, magically, flipped it - "get-right-the-hell-into-jail-right-now' card.

Just be glad we don't live in Germany, where they find the notion of double-jeopardy LAUGHABLE. Armin Meiwes, tortured and slaughtered a man - who volunteered for it... details too grisly to discuss, and ate ~45 pounds of his corpse over the succeeding months. Jury said, voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutors disagreed, tried him again. Guilty of murder. Next song.

Infractions of mala-in-se are bad and should be punished, fittingly. But only once and before a jury of one's peers. Looking around, though, there's hardly a person on the street whom I would trust enough with my life, so I'd rather not do anything which would put me - or them - in that situation.

 

[garlic_b]

As a liberal, I love to spend my money, as well as yours on stuff. That said I think this money is well spent.

 

[gund]

It depends.

Some courts/jurisdiction the juries specify the sentence too. I think in those cases the judge cannot increase a jury sentence.

Similar to the concept that a judge can only vacate a jury verdict by turning guilty into not guilty, but cannot change it from not guilty to guilty.

Jury trumps judge usually.

But I'm not sure.