The intention behind debating guilt only at the first trial is to prevent endless retrials for the same thing. Imagine if you were cleared of a charge but someone kept re-accusing you over and over, dragging you back to trial again and again. Or similarly, if someone was found guilty of the murder of someone you loved, but kept being re-tried again and again, and you had to keep giving testimony as a witness each time.
What is "perverted" about the system is that people have found ways around it to essentially get retrials for the same crime. Because there are so many laws, and so confusingly worded, the prosecutor can often just keep throwing things at you until something sticks (especially for white-collar crimes.) And appeals, which ought to be rare, somehow have become routine for many cases.
>> Imagine if you were cleared of a charge but someone kept re-accusing you over and over, dragging you back to trial again and again.
Well that is turning the double jeopardy rule on its head, using that to defend not considering innocence on appeal is something only a lawyer wishing to pervert the law would consider...
The purpose of double jeopardy is to limit state power to put people in a cage, not to increase state power to keep them there...
>And appeals, which ought to be rare, somehow have become routine for many cases.
I dont think so, I think any sentence over 5 years should come with an automatic appeal to a 3 judge panel and any sentence of Life or more, should come with a automatic retrial with a whole new jury.
I have zero faith in the Jury system and police state, and I think the wrongful conviction rate is vastly under reported. That is with out even getting started in the immoral extortion racket called "plea bargain"
What is "perverted" about the system is that people have found ways around it to essentially get retrials for the same crime. Because there are so many laws, and so confusingly worded, the prosecutor can often just keep throwing things at you until something sticks (especially for white-collar crimes.) And appeals, which ought to be rare, somehow have become routine for many cases.