Is justice really blind?

[Wiwo]

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term?  
                        
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you

This sound funny but although it’s not as this is a case of murder. If I was a lawyer, I would have set her free this time around since she already served the term for the murder she was accused of earlier. The case of the recent and proven murder should be served by the judge who has sent her for murder the first place without having a proof of that. With this, he’ll try to be more careful in the future when given verdict for a case of murder.

Thousands of people suffer for crimes they never committed and the world turn blind eyes on that since they’ve no one to stand for them. Justice is been misused in today’s world, unless there’s a solution found to it soon if not, we’ll continue to experience such even in the future time to come.

It's true that one can not serve the same sentence twice and for that, it is very important to note that the woman's case will be a highly celebrated one since there have been evidence in the current case, unlike the first case where she was sentenced without evidence of competency of the evidence to prove that she committed the crime she is accused with.

It is also important to note that,  the woman does not have the right to kill the husband in whatever conditions.

[Gozie51]

In America, you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

It can be challenging to trust the court's decision when they incarcerate someone for a murder where no body was discovered. Without any concrete evidence to establish the death of the alleged victim, except for a case of mistaken identity involving a different corpse, it becomes difficult to accept the ruling.

The likely mind of the court is to hold her in custody for sometime just to fulfill the law for someone that murdered someone. The lawyer may remind the court that she has been imprisoned already for allegedly killing the same man where she served the full jail sentence for murder. I believe the court will free her since it is the same man that he went to jail on.

[Die_empty]

    Friends let's do small judiciary work and legal advice this morning. A woman was accused of killing her husband, his body was never found and she was sentenced. Years after serving her jail term, she found out the man is living with another woman.

   She went and shot the man several times and he died for real this time around and she was re-arrested for the same murder on the same person.

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term? 
                         
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you

She will be tried for fresh murder. The right thing she would have done was to sue her ex-husband and claim damages. Victims of false imprisonment are usually compensated with huge sums in the US. He would have been sentenced to jail for faking his death and the state would have compensated her for false imprisonment. She made a big mistake by taking the law into her hands by killing her ex-husband. Nevertheless, any case can be successfully argued in court but if I were the judge she will get half the jail term she deserves.

She won't be sentenced for a particular crime twice, so I think that settles it but if she is made to go to jail again on it, that is injustice to her. She was erroneously convicted when she had not committed the crime and now that she committed it, she didn't cause the first conviction, probably the prosecution and judges were hasty to do due diligence on the case. So she should be free.

Double Jeopardy is a legal concept that states that a criminal defendant can not face persecution for the same offense. But the concept of double jeopardy has some exemptions and is interpreted differently in most countries. The accused can be tried twice if the crime was committed in different states and or the case is brought before another court that is higher or different from the one that gave the first judgment.

[Myleschetty]

Because most systems are influenced by wealthy and powerful people, whom some judges also obey to the point of breaking their oaths, justice is either blind or unfair to some people. However, in the case described by the OP, the laws and regulations of the nation in which the murderer lives will be what determines whether or not the murderer is punished. The woman cannot be imprisoned again in some nations, and she must be imprisoned again in others.

[Belarge]

She was accused of Killing her husband when his corps was not found so they were not even sure if he is dead or alive,
Why imprison the woman without a fair investigation.

But if she has served a jail term already and later found out the her man flee away to stay with another woman, then I think she must have been compensated for injustice, but if she had to go and murder her man again for real, then as law demands she would be arrested and serve the jail term again, that's all I can say...
I know most times judgement are not fair

[Shova]

    Friends let's do small judiciary work and legal advice this morning. A woman was accused of killing her husband, his body was never found and she was sentenced. Years after serving her jail term, she found out the man is living with another woman.

   She went and shot the man several times and he died for real this time around and she was re-arrested for the same murder on the same person.

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term? 
                         
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you

Most countries does not sentence a person on murder without finding the body (or skeleton).

[EluguHcman]

The justification of justice depends on who the  judge is otherwise, justice is just a tool to be operated by humans.
Mantles can be claimed and reclaimed

There is no future jailing prosecution term so, the woman would be jailed for murder as long there is an evidence of her commitment.
There is no remorse and no tolerance in jurisdiction.

[yazher]

Well! Judges are just judging due to the evidence that is being presented to them and the result of their judgment is nothing but a job. Unless someone pays them some money to give that verdict that's when problems arise because right now we obviously know that there are some people that are willing to take some money without hesitation even though the consequences are huge. I think the woman deserves to just place in a cell for a short time because we all know she has just been frustrated because of the guy, they stole her life from her by cheating and making her a murderer.

[Marykeller]

If I am to judge in this case, the woman has a case to answer despite being punished for a crime she didn't commit.

Where she has a case to answer is taking laws into her hands by shooting her husband whereas there is military personnel that would have got the man arrested if the matter was reported to them at first.

What the woman would have done first is to have reported the matter to the police, for them to get her husband arrested for an act of defamation. For such actions of making the woman suffer the consequences of a crime she didn't commit, the woman's husband would have ultimately paid dearly.

The majority of lawyers would be willing to step forward in cases like this one to represent the accused person's interests. They will fight for the man's sentence to prison and restitution. They will ensure that the case ultimately benefits both them and the woman. By legal standards, the woman should win this case, and her husband should make amends for his actions against her by portraying himself as dead for a considerable amount of time. Instead, she was accused and punished for his death.

[Queentoshi]

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term? 
                         
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you

The jail term for murder is usually very long, in cases where it is not life imprisonment. Her life has already been wasted in jail when she did kill anyone. The woman should not be made to serve any new sentence because according to the evidence that got her sentenced, the man is already dead even though his body was never found. So, the question is, can a dead man be killed again? if the man was already dead, then he is dead. If she was pardoned after a long sentence because no body was found, now that there is a body, she can go in to continue and complete her sentence.

[Gozie51]

Double Jeopardy is a legal concept that states that a criminal defendant can not face persecution for the same offense. But the concept of double jeopardy has some exemptions and is interpreted differently in most countries. The accused can be tried twice if the crime was committed in different states and or the case is brought before another court that is higher or different from the one that gave the first judgment.

I think what analysis you are making about double jeopardy and the facts plus the jurisdiction of the crime is totally different. If you kill different people at different times of course you can be prosecuted for them after you have served a jail term for one and you commit the act of another person. But in the instant analogy of the op as represented in his post, he is referring to one and only person whom the accuse was sentenced and served a jail term. I believe if the offender goes to another state, he won't be tried for that same person he killed initially since he has been punished in the first place or first court.

[BADecker]

Is justice really  blind?


Justice is not at all blind... not in the tiny bit of the least. All justice has been made whole by the salvation that Jesus did when He died on the cross, and arose on the third day.

Everything that is done and believed by people in this life, is to express where they will stand in God's judgment in the last day.

[Alpha Marine]

Actually,  justice ain't blind,  not in this world we live in.  We shouldn't be delusional enough to believe that the court is the last hope of the common man.

But in this instance,  the woman committed a crime.  If she has the right lawyers she might have gone free or with minimal sentence,  hence justice is not blind. 
So it just depend on how good your lawyers are.

[Jessie2121]

    Friends let's do small judiciary work and legal advice this morning. A woman was accused of killing her husband, his body was never found and she was sentenced. Years after serving her jail term, she found out the man is living with another woman.

   She went and shot the man several times and he died for real this time around and she was re-arrested for the same murder on the same person.

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term? 
                         
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you

I don't really know where the body of the man went at first but this is a serious crime.She was charged for a crime she didn't commit and she went to jail for the number of years given to her.Now she's out and found out that the suppose dead man isn't really dead and she made it happen for real (that's a recap).

If I'm to be the judge I'd address the case as a fresh case and I'll let everyone know the true storyline and I can't sentence her for a crime she didn't comit at first which she served and now she went on to commit that same crime, I'll set her free with conviction after all she's innocent.

Sometimes justice can be blind but not always.

[Gozie51]

If I'm to be the judge I'd address the case as a fresh case and I'll let everyone know the true storyline and I can't sentence her for a crime she didn't comit at first which she served and now she went on to commit that same crime, I'll set her free with conviction after all she's innocent.

Sometimes justice can be blind but not always.

That should be the simple justice on the matter. Justice is not blind if the matter is judged this way but it will be injustice if she is sent to jail for the second time while she actually committed the crime once. Such case should be handled with care as that is same person and not a different person. The earlier judgement was wrong against the alleged offender.

[Jenwi]

She has already served since her punishment can not be undone. If proper investigation was carried it out. It would have help to show her innocence.
The murder was once, therefore she will serve the punishment once.
However the cause of the husband being away is also wicked and barbaric. If it had been away due to job or other conderable motives it would have been accepted. It is obvious that she was pain because while she was suffering her jail term, the man was busy enjoying himself.

[jrrsparkles]

Legally you can't be sentenced twice for the same crime in most part of the world and in some extreme cases if someone was wrongfully committed for a robbery or something and done his time in prison and then found not guilty may attempt the crime and can go without any jail period.

[Ucy]

   Friends let's do small judiciary work and legal advice this morning. A woman was accused of killing her husband, his body was never found and she was sentenced. Years after serving her jail term, she found out the man is living with another woman.

   She went and shot the man several times and he died for real this time around and she was re-arrested for the same murder on the same person.

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term?  
                        
..., your opinion is needed. Over to you

Trying to murder her husband and failing in the process is as bad as murdering him, but if she never really tried to murder him and was falsely accused, then she probably doesn't deserve the prison sentence she was given for murder. If she does not deserve the sentence she served but ended up committing a crime (murder) that attracts thesame  sentence, she should still be given a fresh/thesame sentence due to the fact that murdering her husband later (or the fact she can murder her husband) is enough proof she actually deserves the first sentence. But since she already served it, an additional sentence could be given on the fact she is capable of murder which is as bad as murder itself. People are better off having her in isolation to keep the rest of the society safe from her (until she is completely reformed for good) than letting her roam about freely.

She would only deserve compensation or justice for being falsely accused of murdering her husband if after regaining her freedom they later realized she was fully innocent or never commited such crime.
You are nolonger innocent once you have become guilty of the crime you were falsely accused of. Your past innocence will no longer be counted/remembered. And it means you actually deserved the first sentence you were given in innocence. This should help people understand that anyone that is capable of committing such crime doesn't really deserve to be called innocent. The evil  was either in her growing or it was expressed in other ways like in words,thoughts etc. It's possible to murder with your words, and ofcourse thoughts

[Y3shot]

First the court have no right to jail her for years when their no evidence to prove if she really kid the man. It is so painful going through a punishment which you never committed. The woman who later killed the man just because of the punishment she  went through will be blamed this time around, it doesn't mean because she was innocent at first this time around she will go unpunished,  she will serve for the sin she committed this time .

[Kelward]

   
As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term? 
                         
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you

I'm not a lawyer, neither I'm i a law enforcement officer, but from a layman's perspective I know that we should not take laws into our hands, because there must be a punishment for every law that is broken. I guess that it is quite understandable why she had to take the law into her hands and murdered the husband, because the man probably intentionally absconded and must know about the trials of his wife and her imprisonment. So the wife must have felt that he's better off dead, since she has served time for his death.

She should have sued the government and her husband, maybe get a good good lawyer and claim heavy damages.