Law Commons^™

Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures And Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit The Crime, Barbara A. Mack

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will attempt to distill from this confusion a meaningful double jeopardy policy, applicable to parallel civil and criminal proceedings, that takes into account the history of double jeopardy, recent changes in statutory law, and the contemporary chaotic state of parallel civil and criminal proceedings. Under current law, double jeopardy protects against three abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. This Article will show that the multiple punishments prong has little basis in law, other than reliance …

Preface: Double Jeopardy In Washington And Beyond, Justice Philip A. Talmadge

Seattle University Law Review

The prohibition against double jeopardy is of ancient lineage in western civilization. In a ringing and scholarly dissent that rewards reflection, Justice Hugo Black said:

Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization. Its roots run deep into Greek and Roman times. Even in the Dark Ages, when so many other principles of justice were lost, the idea that one trial and one punishment were enough remained alive through the canon law and the teachings of the early Christian writers. By the thirteenth century …

The Double Jeopardy Implications Of In Rem Forfeiture Of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization Of A Constitutional Violation, Andrew L. Subin

Seattle University Law Review

Over the past decade, the government has escalated its "war on drugs." Although the "war" has not decreased drug use or limited the availability of drugs on the street, the government continues to sacrifice the constitutional rights of its citizens in an effort to escalate the hostility. Since the "zero tolerance" policy of the Reagan Administration, the government has relied heavily on the forfeiture of property related to drug crimes as a tool to deter and punish the illegal distribution of drugs. The federal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 881, allows the government to seize any property used to facilitate …

Rico, Merger, And Double Jeopardy, Earle A. Partington

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will examine RICO as it has been interpreted by the United States Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States in an effort to determine the effects that merger and double jeopardy have had in the past, and should have in the future, upon RICO prosecutions. Because the doc- trines of merger and double jeopardy are criminal law principles, only the criminal aspects of RICO will be examined. Initially, this Article will explore the purpose and history of RICO and examine the doctrines of merger and double jeopardy and their application to RICO indictments and …

The Court-Ordered Predisposition Evaluation Under Washington's Juvenile Justice Act: A Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?—Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40, Judith H. Ramseyer

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment analyzes the significance of the principles animating the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by first looking at the purposes of Washington’s Juvenile Justice Act; second, by examining the status of the privilege against self-incrimination during sentencing; and third, by applying the values protected by the privilege to the use of predisposition psychological evaluations in Washington juvenile courts.