Talk:Double jeopardy
|
|
Is double jeopardy used as a proper noun? I would have presumed as a legal term (if so used rather than under a more formal name) it would require double capitalisation (no pun intended!) Does anyone know? If it is a formal term used as a proper noun, then the page should be moved to [[Double Jeopardy]]. I would also presume that the TV show would use capitals in both words as TV shows almost invariably do. ÉÍREman 06:33 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
- That depends on if you want to have this article be based on a single official definition of double jeopardy or about the general concept. Every nation that uses this term will use it as a proper noun but only in reference to their definition of it. So "Double Jeopardy in the United States" would be a correct page title but the general article talking about the term would only be a common noun. --mav
Should discuss principle in Canadian law. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The Carroll Case
The Australian case cited in relation to this principle (R V Carroll) deserves its own article (at least, it does from the perspective of a parochial Aussie ex-law student :P). Until someone with more legal knowledge than I have is able to write one, I'll link the case-name to an article on Carroll himself covering the case/s involved. BigHaz 11:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. I wrote an essay on the case last year, I'll write the article when I have it in front of me, I can't remember all the specifics. I edited what you added, I felt some of it was surplus information Psychobabble
Exceptions to Double Jeopardy
Found an external link to United States v. Felix (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=378) but Findlaw only lists the appeals court case for Illinois v. Aleman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=972479). Possibly, the Supreme Court declined.
- User:Raul654: If you have a link please update.