Skip to main content
Law

Return to Answer

Fix a typo
Source Link
Ryan M
Ryan M
  • 10.3k
  • 2
  • 47
  • 63

(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions)

Your friend is incorrect: that would be a new offense, for which Person A could be prosecuted anew. If your friend's logic were correct, once a person is convicted of robbing a store, they'd be free to rob that store without repercussions for life.

It's worth noting that the conviction isn't relevant: the prohibition of double jeopardy in the United States preventprevents even multiple prosecutions (except, in some cases, for separate state and federal prosecutions or foreign prosecutions).

(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions)

Your friend is incorrect: that would be a new offense, for which Person A could be prosecuted anew. If your friend's logic were correct, once a person is convicted of robbing a store, they'd be free to rob that store without repercussions for life.

It's worth noting that the conviction isn't relevant: the prohibition of double jeopardy in the United States prevent even multiple prosecutions (except, in some cases, for separate state and federal prosecutions or foreign prosecutions).

(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions)

Your friend is incorrect: that would be a new offense, for which Person A could be prosecuted anew. If your friend's logic were correct, once a person is convicted of robbing a store, they'd be free to rob that store without repercussions for life.

It's worth noting that the conviction isn't relevant: the prohibition of double jeopardy in the United States prevents even multiple prosecutions (except, in some cases, for separate state and federal prosecutions or foreign prosecutions).

Source Link
Ryan M
Ryan M
  • 10.3k
  • 2
  • 47
  • 63

(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions)

Your friend is incorrect: that would be a new offense, for which Person A could be prosecuted anew. If your friend's logic were correct, once a person is convicted of robbing a store, they'd be free to rob that store without repercussions for life.

It's worth noting that the conviction isn't relevant: the prohibition of double jeopardy in the United States prevent even multiple prosecutions (except, in some cases, for separate state and federal prosecutions or foreign prosecutions).