You and I have a right not to be placed in double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy means "double danger".
It is a right not to be placed in danger of being punished again.
Double jeopardy is a concept common in criminal law.
But double jeopardy did not emanate in criminal law.
In criminal law, if an accused is acquitted, he cannot be tried again for that same offense.
Otherwise, he will be placed in "double jeopardy."
I read and learned from a decision of the Supreme Court that the concept of double jeopardy traces its origin from the Bible.
I learned that in the Old Testament book of Nahum 1:12 the Lord God said: "Although I have afflicted thee O Judah, I will afflict thee no more."
In other words, the Lord promised that after He has punished, he does not intended to place Judah in deouble jeopardy of being punished again.
So too, it was during the time of Noah, also in the old testament.
The Lord commanded Noah to build an Ark because the Lord will punish the Earth that was filled with sin.
After "cleansing" the Earth, the Lord promised not to flood the Earth again.
Let me quote the book of Genesis chapter 6 verse 21: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
To my mind, it was the Lord that introduced the concept of double jeopardy.
So it is a basic Christian belief that once punished, a person is not to be punished again for the same act.
I raise this because I have a client whose son was penalized by his school with a one-week suspension.
The student had a confrontation with his teacher, which resulted in the student throwing one of the classroom chairs onto a window.
While serving the suspension, the student-son received another order placing him under "preventive" suspension while an investigation is on-going, which investigation may result in punishing the student with expulsion.
The investigation is for the same act or offense committed by the student.
I told the school authorities that what it is doing is violating the student's right not to be in danger of being punished twice for the same act or offense.
I think the school blinked, because the father told me the school authorities want his son to go back to school after serving the first penalty of suspension.
Paloma property
-
This afternoon, December 27, 2008, after having luch in san Jose town, here
in Negros Oriental, my father took us to a piece of beach lot he bought
years a...
15 years ago
5 comments:
institutions take a serious look at who they are dealing with. it always helps when it comes from someone with authority. thats when lawyers come handy.
writer, who distinguishes himself as a "better lawyer" should have learned from his law school that preventive suspension is not a penalty and therefore, any penalty that may be imposed by the school authorities to his client's son can never be considered double jeopardy. -student from Philippine Law School
Dear anonymous student from Philippine Law School:
One of the things a lawyer must be trained, is in good basic reading and comprehension.
Read the article again, so you may get the facts straight.
Advice: If after reading, you still can't get the facts straight, read the article again.
It's short.
Thanks.
sir, your article was written in crooked lines, perhaps that's the reason why i cant get the facts straight. for example, you mentioned about the school authorities imposing a penalty of one-week suspension on your client's son even PRIOR to an on-going investigation? weird! but even so, the order placing your client's son under "preventive" suspension whether served or not cannot be considered a double jeopardy and hence, the school authorities should not have "blinked" as there was no cause to blink. i must agree, however, that it is the penalty imposed after the on-going investigation has been concluded and after the alleged one-week suspension has already been served that would place your client's son in double jeopardy. by the way, one cannot comprehend clearly based on assumptions only. thank god, your article was short.
Dear Student of Philippine Law School.
Please do not have the habit of blaming others for your intellectual inadequacies. There are no crooked lines in my writing. Nor are there assumptions, as this is an actual case. All the facts are in the short article. Yet, in your utter failure to comprehend, you rudely intrude into my home blog. I seriously suggest you first improve on basic reading comprehension. You’re going to need it for the bar. Don’t be thankful my short, simple article. You will encounter much more difficult and complicated legal writings ahead. Most important, practice a little humility. You’ll need this if you want to be a lawyer. By displaying humility, you bring honor to your school. I advise you to refrain from flaunting your school while exposing your brain. I think your school wouldn’t like that. Lastly, do not throw insults while hiding beneath the cloak of anonymity. That is the height of intellectual irresponsibility and plain cowardice.
Post a Comment