Business Law – Assignment Example

Case Analysis Armington is correct because the Fifth Amendment to the United s Constitution prohibits consecutive prosecutions against any citizen for the same nature of offenses. If Armington is prosecuted again for armed robbery and assault, it will cause the double jeopardy situation. Double jeopardy not only destroys the integrity of the legal system but also results in the violation of citizens’ rights. Thompson (2006) asserts, “If the double jeopardy law did not exist, then citizens could be tried over and over, even after they have been acquitted”. In our case, when Jennings brought a civil tort suit against Armington for robbery and physical attack, Armington’s response to the situation was not out of the limits of laws because he was already facing a criminal trial in a case of armed robbery, which was similar to the case brought by Jennings.
If the law related to double jeopardy did not exist, only then Armington was likely to be punished more than once for the same crime. But the Double Jeopardy Clause has protected Armington against multiple punishments for the same offense because according to the United States law, once a sentence has been handed down by the court, there can be no more punishments unless the criminal commits another crime. A mistrial can be the only situation for Jennings in which she can bring a civil tort suit against Armington. It is because mistrials do not count as double jeopardy as no decision is taken by the court against the offender. So, after a complete analysis of the case, I would say that Armington’s response was correct and based on the law regarding double jeopardy.
References
Thompson, S. (2006, October 19). Double Jeopardy in Criminal Law. Retrieved Aug. 03, 2010, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71868/double_jeopardy_in_criminal_law.html?cat=17