I've been completely into the old(er) episodes of Law & Order lately. I had always found the normal Law & Order series a little bit boring, I was more of a Law & Order: Criminal Intent kind of person. But now I am finding the legal (and moral) dilemma's of the series absolutely fascinating. The other day I say an episode that posed a particularly interesting (albeit perhaps somewhat theoretical) legal question. The episode started with a murdered woman being found in a park. The detectives discover that her social security number belongs to a woman who died ten years ago and that she has been living under a false name. They suspect her husband of killing her, but he blames his brother. It turns out that she was married to his brother first, but she had an affair with her brother-in-law (her current husband - are you still with me?). They ran away together, which resulted in her being 'missing'. Since her husband (her first husband) had been abusive, he was soon suspected of her 'murder' and was sentenced to jail. He was released after ten years, about a week before she was actually murdered. He now confesses to having murdered her (his brother's wife), now, not ten years ago. So, he already served his time in jail when he was wrongfully convicted, therefore he cannot be convicted again for killing the same women. Or so he claims.
Is he right?
You know, I really can't tell you. And believe me, I've thought about this! It really is a question whether this is a case of double jeopardy of not. Double jeopardy means that the same person cannot be convicted more than once for the same crime. You will find this rule in (probably) all national criminal laws, as well as in international law. In this ficticious case of ours, we're definitely dealing with 'the same person', but are we also talking about 'the same crime'? The victim is the same. The crime he is being charged with is the same (murder). Double jeopardy seems to apply. However, one could also argue that it is in fact not the same crime, since they took place ten years apart. Your instincts (or at least mine) tell you that the killer should be punished for what he did now. He should thus be prosecuted and sentenced. But in fact he already payed for his crime in advance, since he already spent ten years in jail. It really is confusing, isn't it?
You're probably wondering what the prosecutors of Law & Order decided to do. Did they prosecute him? No, they did not. I turned out he didn't do it after all. It was his brother (the murdered woman's current husband) and he was just trying to cover for him, thinking he wouldn't be prosecuted. Then why did I bother you with this incredibly long and confusing story, you are asking? Well, because I thought it was interesting and fascinating and, frankly, I don't really care if you think it's not! (but ofcourse I'm hoping you find it as fascinating as I do and will now be haunted be this utterly confusing legal dilemma as much as I am).
