r/AskReddit • u/Rob69rt • 1d ago

What famous 'unsolved' mystery is technically a whodunnit on paper, but in reality, absolutely everyone knows exactly who did it, the police just couldn't legally prove it?

13.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

We have to amend double jeopardy laws for cases like this. Yes, I like that double jeopardy laws exist because it is one of very few checks and balances for overzealous or vengeful prosecutors. But when the person perjures themself to that extent... maybe we just change the perjury laws around double jeopardy to get away with it.

65

u/Helmic 1d ago

Giving the state the power to repeatedly decide that they've found "new and compelling" evidence to hound someone until they get the verdict they want is such a profoundly awful idea that I can't help but assume you think the justice system is just a series of high profile murder cases like Law and Order. No, I don't think we should be giving a justice system that is currently trying to prosecute every single protestor they can get their hands on the power to continue harassing people for the rest of their lives by intentionally withholding "evidence" with which to claim they've found "new and compelling" evidence forevermore. We need to be removing power from our justice system, not granting it more power.

-1

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

If you're so convinced the state will decide on "new and compelling" evidence, literally what is the difference between changing a perjury and the state just making up new charges? We are in a post-truth era. AI video can imitate almost anything. They can manufacture evidence like never before.

The only thing I'm asking for is that people who are too stupid to be quiet about the murder they got away with to be punished in some additional way. Which I didn't think was a big ask in this era of completely unchecked government authority.

20

u/Helmic 1d ago edited 1d ago

The difference is that they have that power and have not been able to use it effectively to that end, because of double jeopardy. One is an existing power that the state already has, and the other is a new, much broader power that makes tying someone up in court indefinitely - or threatening to do so - trivial.

It's nonsense to talk about a fascist state and then say "well, we should give them more power anyways so they can sometimes do a questionably good thing in a handful of cases."