Topic: Is justice really blind? - page 3. (Read 496 times)

The justification of justice depends on who the  judge is otherwise, justice is just a tool to be operated by humans.
Mantles can be claimed and reclaimed

There is no future jailing prosecution term so, the woman would be jailed for murder as long there is an evidence of her commitment.
There is no remorse and no tolerance in jurisdiction.

Most countries does not sentence a person on murder without finding the body (or skeleton).

She was accused of Killing her husband when his corps was not found so they were not even sure if he is dead or alive,
Why imprison the woman without a fair investigation.

But if she has served a jail term already and later found out the her man flee away to stay with another woman, then I think she must have been compensated for injustice, but if she had to go and murder her man again for real, then as law demands she would be arrested and serve the jail term again, that's all I can say...
I know most times judgement are not fair

Because most systems are influenced by wealthy and powerful people, whom some judges also obey to the point of breaking their oaths, justice is either blind or unfair to some people. However, in the case described by the OP, the laws and regulations of the nation in which the murderer lives will be what determines whether or not the murderer is punished. The woman cannot be imprisoned again in some nations, and she must be imprisoned again in others.

She will be tried for fresh murder. The right thing she would have done was to sue her ex-husband and claim damages. Victims of false imprisonment are usually compensated with huge sums in the US. He would have been sentenced to jail for faking his death and the state would have compensated her for false imprisonment. She made a big mistake by taking the law into her hands by killing her ex-husband. Nevertheless, any case can be successfully argued in court but if I were the judge she will get half the jail term she deserves.

Double Jeopardy is a legal concept that states that a criminal defendant can not face persecution for the same offense. But the concept of double jeopardy has some exemptions and is interpreted differently in most countries. The accused can be tried twice if the crime was committed in different states and or the case is brought before another court that is higher or different from the one that gave the first judgment.

The likely mind of the court is to hold her in custody for sometime just to fulfill the law for someone that murdered someone. The lawyer may remind the court that she has been imprisoned already for allegedly killing the same man where she served the full jail sentence for murder. I believe the court will free her since it is the same man that he went to jail on.

It's true that one can not serve the same sentence twice and for that, it is very important to note that the woman's case will be a highly celebrated one since there have been evidence in the current case, unlike the first case where she was sentenced without evidence of competency of the evidence to prove that she committed the crime she is accused with.

It is also important to note that,  the woman does not have the right to kill the husband in whatever conditions.

This sound funny but although it’s not as this is a case of murder. If I was a lawyer, I would have set her free this time around since she already served the term for the murder she was accused of earlier. The case of the recent and proven murder should be served by the judge who has sent her for murder the first place without having a proof of that. With this, he’ll try to be more careful in the future when given verdict for a case of murder.

Thousands of people suffer for crimes they never committed and the world turn blind eyes on that since they’ve no one to stand for them. Justice is been misused in today’s world, unless there’s a solution found to it soon if not, we’ll continue to experience such even in future time to come.

The answer is here, mostly in the last phrase, which I bolded. Micah 6:8:

Justice,we all strive for it yet very few countries if any at all have true justice.I use to also teach IT classes to people who want to change careers and at one such course I had one student that told me she was in for justice studies and came here only to see what IT has to offer,I told her that all the IT jokes are with lawyers and she told me I want to be a prosecutor.I asked her then a direct question,will you bring us true justice or sometimes you will be corrupted and the answer she gave me stunned me,she said it would depend on the consequences which led me to think that she would take money sometimes and true justice for me does not exist,of course this is just an example but I am sure many countries has just that blind justice.

That is a very weird an unlikely to happen to be honest. If I was a judge I would take in consideration those years that were already served during the first wrong judgment. Though, as it was already mentioned in this thread, there are countries where people cannot be charged for the same crime twice, in order to avoid unlawful prosecution.

I do not consider myself to be a good judge anyways...

To me, as the world is going, I would say justice is not blind.

In my personal view, the first case that befell the woman, it was a slander, which made the woman languish in prison. Then for the second case, maybe the woman is angry with her husband, because with the past events, this has put her in prison (slander). Therefore the woman shot the man or her husband and finally the man died. So in conclusion, the two cases cannot be combined from a legal perspective. Because the time and place are different. But if the case is seen from the personal problems of the man and woman, it is clearly related. But if legally it is not related. So if the woman is arrested again, I think it's only fair. Because maybe in the first case it is a slander for the woman. But in this second case, the woman clearly committed a crime by shooting her husband.

The question is,  is the woman tried at first sentence because if there is no evidence of the woman murdering the husband then there is no justification for her first sentence and if all things are equal and justice should be served the woman will be sentenced to life imprisonment for the second last murder.


Left for me the woman really went too far because if she is patient enough to have pursued her case in court she would have secured a better judgement against her former husband.

Well, for me, she has already served her sentence for the crime she did not commit, so there wouldn't be any sentence again. But the woman was really wrong in her actions; she should not have taken power into her own hands. There were other ways she could have sought justice. For example, If I were her, I would just drag him to court again and demand he pay for some emotional damage he has caused me, and any amount I require is what he will pay me. Or, I will request that he go to jail and serve for all those years I also spent there.
That's why it's always advised that we never be ruled by anger. I damn hate the action the woman took; by the way, who knows if she's done something bad (a bad habit), which was the reason the man disappeared? Her actions said it all.



Cheers 🥂, Dr.Bitcoin_Strange 👺👺

That's true. This is why you never leave it up to the court by designating an attorney to fight for you.

Whomever is written on the indictment is the one who is accusing you. Much of the time it is an artificial entity, like a government or county or city, that is indicting you. Require them to get on the stand in their person so that you can question them. They can't do it because they are paperwork. Your attorney won't/can't require this of them, but you can if you don't have an attorney.

If the prosecutor tries to force the indictment without the accuser getting on the stand, then require that the prosecuting attorney get on the stand. Then ask him what first-hand-knowledge/personal-eye-witness-admittance he is going to testify to. He can't. He wasn't there. If you have an attorney, yourself, he will never demand these things of the court.

If you let the court decide by having an attorney, yourself, you lose if they decide to let you lose. You have essentially shot yourself in the foot. It's your fault.

Marc Stevens Confronting Scottsdale City Council - Where's the Evidence Your Laws Apply? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi4XDTyeHqA.

It can be challenging to trust the court's decision when they incarcerate someone for a murder where no body was discovered. Without any concrete evidence to establish the death of the alleged victim, except for a case of mistaken identity involving a different corpse, it becomes difficult to accept the ruling.

Whenever the State or the Federal charge you with a crime, they always list on the indictment as the accuser something like, "The United States of America," or "The State of Whatever." Since you the defendant have the right to question your accuser on the stand, let "The United States of America," or "The State of Whatever." place his hand on the bible and take the oath to tell the truth. Then let 'him' get on the stand and answer your questions.

If he won't show to take the oath and get on the stand, case dismissed... but require it to be discharged, for their own good, because next time you are going to charge them cash money for their frivolous litigation against you.

Note that if you have an attorney for anything other than co-counsel, it's the government litigating with itself. Anything you say means nothing except that they allow it.

I think the reasonable thing to do is to allow her go after the arrest because she has already served the jail term for the murder and won't have to be punished for it again. .



She won't be sentenced for a particular crime twice, so I think that settles it but if she is made to go to jail again on it, that is injustice to her. She was erroneously convicted when she had not committed the crime and now that she committed it, she didn't cause the first conviction, probably the prosecution and judges were hasty to do due diligence on the case. So she should be free.

It's crazy to just pin a murder of a husband on a wife when there's no concrete evidence. How did the "murder" take place? Well, it's easy to pin such an accusation on the wife if the husband's family do not really like the woman and will go any lengths to make sure no proper investigation is done and this can be made easy if money exchanges hands.

For me as the judge, she'd be given pardon and also be allowed to sue the people that got her arrested in a civil lawsuit.

Being the wife and the first person to be suspected, they have no right to jail her without having any concrete reason that serves as an evidence, there are maby cases of disappearance whereby after along while they discover the lost was not dead but only missing and some got found at the end of it, there could be many reasons to what led to his disappearance and except they have a cognit reason to proof that the wife is behind the incident then it's very wrong to sentence her.


In doing this, she does not only qualify for a jail terms, she should also taste dead as the same experience on her just as she later did to her husband, which means there might be serious dispute that led to the disappearance at first and later after the discovery of the husband being alive, the wife must have gone so far in some dealings that could go wrong as against the wish of her husband and the only way she will want her secrets not to get exposed is to kill him, but she would have thought about appealing as well.


The will also taste death, after which we have gone through a recap of the whole story and what transpired that led to the man's disappearance, but the judge also have little fault as mistake in this, she deserves not to be sentenced from the first place, maybe they may have mercy on her by giving her a lifetime imprisonment in compensation for the first jail terms she received.