Question

the commission on human rights cannot prosecute felons. What is the solution?

Answer 1

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1] As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[2]

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1] As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[2]If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[3][4] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[5]

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1] As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[2]If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[3][4] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[5]In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) or autrefois convict (formerly convicted), with the same effect.[6][7]

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1] As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[2]If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[3][4] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[5]In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) or autrefois convict (formerly convicted), with the same effect.[6][7]The doctrine appears to have originated in Roman law, in the principle non bis in idem ("an issue once decided must not be raised again").[8]