Justice or Double Jeopardy?

I am remiss this morning. I should have had this post prepared in advance but, alas, I procrastinated. All I can say is that it is my nature to procrastinate, it might even be genetic in origin.

Normally, my Saturday posts are specifically political in nature. This one is not so specific. It concerns something that arises from the Zimmerman trial. Something that came up near to the closing arguments. It is the issue of the jury being told that they can consider, and rule, on a "lesser" charge than murder in the 2nd degree.

Here's why it bothers me. I see it as a form of double jeopardy and a situation where the defendant is unable to defend himself against the charge. Neither he nor his attorney(s) are allowed in the jury room where the jurors deliberate on the case. If the jurors find him not guilty of the initial charge, they can then consider if he might be guilty of some other charge concerning the event.

Unless the defense anticipates such a situation, it presents only a defense against the charges filed. If it does anticipate this situation, it risks confusing the jury by addressing all possible other charges that might have been filed.

I see this allowing the jury to act as the state... And I see this as a form of double jeopardy. A particularly nasty one since the defense is not made aware (in this case anyway) of the possibility of other charges and is not, therefore, being given the chance to defend against them.

In Zimmerman's case, the "lesser" charge can be almost worse than the charge filed against him... thanks to Florida's "10 20 Life" law.

Perhaps we should have laws that restrict the jury from considering any charges except those filed. It won't help Zimmerman because we cannot enact laws that are retroactive. But it might help in future cases.