Royal English inquiries allowed more than pinching citizen legs, to make the people testify. Then, double jeopardy got banned: if to pinch, then only once.
With human rights, no pinching is allowed at all, and righteously.
Do we need the double jeopardy clause in a constitution? People against royalist extortion should not become excuse for those who want to get away with murder, whereas today the clause might inspire imagination as for a grown up and full-bodied man who commemorates some corporal punishment of early years. It was not even him punished, but still, the punishment was.
To continue with imagination for physical bodies, a picture for a balancing device that goes into an impetuous swing and fortunately regains, might do for ■the US vs Ball. Accused of murder, the defendants invoked double jeopardy.
Their main argument was,
they should not be in courtroom twice.
Are courtrooms “jeopardy of life and limb”?
If we sue someone who has not paid us, or someone who has abused us, is it we voluntarily choose to be exposed to jeopardy? Prosecution is in the same room with defense, for court proceedings, and courtrooms are more or less standard in their interior design.
Habeas corpus is a legal predicate of no broader scope implied. You have your (the) body, it says, and it does not say anyone has you. It must be, you have yourself.
If a constitution recognizes this fact and bans any action except legal — would you expect of countries to ordain double jeopardy in their laws? Then, why warn against it.
TERESA PELKA.COM 