Double Jeopardy

The thought for this article hit my radar screen based upon an article by American Vision - Double Jeopardy is jeopardy. You can read it in its entirety HERE.

The trial of George Zimmerman may well mark the beginning of the end of the law relating to Double Jeopardy as enshrined in the 5th amendment to the US Constitution. It is the perfect case for the enemies of liberty, who have been waiting for the opportunity to overturn this ancient and “archaic” protection and it is also the perfect case to demonstrate why its protections are needed more than ever.

The purpose of the 5th Amendment is to protect against abuse of governmental authority in legal proceedings, and right in the middle of it we come across the following clause:

“Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

Because I've not been following along, I'm not quite apathetic to the political world and what's going on, but I am seriously disgusted with how our nation is going down the drain. We're become a nation of free loaders - wanting a free ride - something for nothing. Our fore fathers would be fit to be tied (a saying my granny used) over our state. I had to do a little research on what's going on.

I found this article which seems (to me) to explain the double jeopardy issue, especially as it relates to Zimmerman, a little more.

The American Vision article went on to describe how double jeopardy is a Biblical concept. Interesting.

“It is uniformly recognized that Scripture prohibits a double infliction of punishment (e.g., the substitutionary atonement of Christ rests on this cardinal point with respect to eternal judgment). Therefore, double trial (i.e., double jeopardy) is ruled out; a man once tried and sentenced is not be subjected to further trial for the same offense. Otherwise the biblical restriction of forty stripes (Deut 25:3) would be senseless; through retrial for the same crime a man could REPEATEDLY be given sets of forty stripes. Thus double trial is forbidden. Now, if this protection is extended even to the guilty, to those convicted of offense, HOW MUCH MORE should the protection be afforded to those who are acquitted as innocent?”[2]