Most people are still under the quaint assumption that you can't be punished for a crime for which you've been acquitted. Not true. In cases where a defendant is convicted of some of the charges against him but acquitted of others, the state can pursue a sentence that includes punishment for the acquitted charges. Yes. You read that correctly. A recent decision (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:lKdDPFHffzkJ:pub.bna.com/cl/04cr227.pdf+michael+ibanga&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) from a U.S. district court in Virginia is unusually candid in pointing out the absurdity of the practice, which is apparently pretty common:
The opinion itself is refreshingly abrupt and scathing, and seems to have come from the pen of a pretty fed-up judge. It includes a history of the right to a jury trial, and quotes from Dickens. As Cato's Tim Lynch explains (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/11/03/winning-but-losing/#more-1103), extra jail time for acquitted charges both encourages prosecutors to over-charge defendants, and encourages defendants to accept plea bargains -- knowing that at trial they could well be sentenced for crimes they didn't commit. If you're wondering if all of this is a violation of the Sixth Amendment, well, if the Sixth Amendment means anything at all, it most certainly is. But we're talking mostly about drug crimes, here -- where the Bill of Rights doesn't apply. |
Most people are still under the quaint assumption that you can't be punished for a crime for which you've been acquitted.
Double jeopardy, famously, doesn't apply among different, sovereign jurisdictions.