Topic: Is justice really blind? (Read 565 times)

The court used to be the hope of the common man, but in my country, that is no more the case.
They forget that what differentiates humans from animals is law and order. Without law and order, we ain't different from animals.
Justice is now for the highest bidder, and this is making some people rather take laws into their hands by involving in jungle justice, because they know that the justice system is nothing to write home about.

that's why i told that, I'll consider her during punishment. Otherwise if same situation repeat in future in other case, then a person will get open license for killing someone in real cause he/she knows that, he/she won't get punished twice. So thus want to stop crime and will announce compensation for them who serve in jail with false accusement and will try not to repeat such cases

there Will be two point.
1. Other person judge her and i found the case for first time. both judges weren't same.
2. I'm the judge for her 1st judgement and she again come before me after get rearrested. (Can be happened co-incidently)

But here op ask me to judge the case. That means that woman should have to come to me again (normally or coincidently), right? Otherwise how can i judge her when I'll be busy to judge others people? That's the facts

The case here is two sided sentence of the crime has already been served, which she did through alledge without concrete evidence. Now she has opponent sharing the man, before any judgement I will first Carry out some search to know if she is truly responsible for the same crime. But if she did, she is guilty certain laws need come in because she guilty reason being she take laws into her hand. But the sentence to jail will be reduced because this is a case of provocation.

Well it is the country where corruption is worshipped. Such countries where the justice system is bought by those who have deep pockets, then they are just going to be in circles and no progress will be made. The justice system is the correctional system of the country or facility that every person should be under both the mighty and the weak . If this is not done that even the highest office holders does not obey the law then the country is doomed. Take away law and its enforcement then that country becomes lawless and retrogressive.

To answer your question, I do not know about other countries Justice system, but in my country, Justice is not blind. It favors the rich and mighty. Matter of fact there are some people in my society who are considered 'sacred cows'. They commit crimes with impunity and go scot-free, even when the get arrested and charged to court, sooner than later they get bail and drag that case for years, until you eventually forget about that case. Sometimes it seems the laws are made to punish only the poor.

I will consider the case as a concluded case because the woman have already served her tem in the prison to fulfill the law of the land and, I will award some dollars for her for do the right thing to kill her husband to let the justice of the land not to experience shame. Never you think justice is blind despite the judge didn't rule the case for your favor because, the Judges in Court so much depend so much trust on the evidence the two parties brought to court which are some of the tools the judges use to answer cases in the court of law.

I don't know about other countries, but in our country the law is not blind, it can see who pays more, who has a case, an important person and which official he belongs to. everything is guaranteed by law they will pass. I hope the laws in our country are as strong and their implementation as good as in Europe.

Regarding the context of this woman, according to our country's criminal law, she will go to prison again and be charged with premeditated murder, I don't know the international name, but the punishment is execution or life imprisonment. but if you are a state official or have money, you can discuss the punishment lol.

it was a new murder, I would have charged the woman with murder or premeditated murder if it had not been spontaneous. and sentenced she to 20 years in prison under our country's criminal code. because there is legal relief, if not the death penalty or life imprisonment.

I am no lawyer, but I think the Judge should set her free. She already served her term in jail for the same crime. This comes under Double jeopardy. You can read further by following the given links.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy
http://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/50-right-not-be-tried-or-punished-twice-criminal-proceedings-same-criminal

Lol but as a judge you have to make judgement that is not repugnant to natural justice and ultra vires. Despite being a judge, you still have to fall back to the books of law guiding humanity and your jurisdiction.

The question is, is it right for someone to be punished twice for one and the same crime? I think the answer is no. Therefore, would you now come back again to punish the woman after she was out of jail to put her back in there?, because you want to wade off other potential committals. The law is not made for a single person but for the whole of the people in the jurisdiction.

It seems interesting along with weird case. Firstly, judge shouldn't have given his judgement without any solid evidence. Don't know how a judge can punish a person base on ideas or guesses. Besides I don't have knowledge what should a judge do according to law. But if i were a judge, as i already declared that woman gulity and that's why she already served her jail term, then I'll consider her punishment after she rearrested. Maybe some years of jail! I would punish her again, otherwise other people would do same crime when they would notice a judge release a real criminal without any punishment

As a judge, you have to do the right thing, which is arresting and sentencing the woman to jail. As the judge I may be considerate as per her previous sentence and reduce the time a little but she must be put to jail because even if she was first wrongly sentenced, she went on and committed a crime (the crime). Two wrongs don’t make a right. So, fresh case for me.

OP, this sound like a fiction to me, how can can a competent court of jurisdiction sentence someone without a good evidence, the corpse was not seen, so what's the evidence of their claim that the woman in question committed the crime, I don't think that such is obtainable anywhere.
The woman having knowledge that the man is living with another woman else where and deciding to go their to shoot him severally, to me am not an attorney but crime is crime, no matter the emotion involve, since you commit a crime you will go in for it, this is my take on this matte.

Nothing, is worth taking the life  of another. No matter the misdeed, immorality wickedness and sin committed against one,. To me she had an opportunity to justify her self from the previous one and justice would have caught up with him. But repeating the same crime that she  was convicted for is not good for her  she could have prosecuted him and the authorities for not properly investigating into the case before conclusion. But if her lawyers are good, she can get reduced sentence.

Justice is not blind, rather it can be compromised by the Elite, those in power and authority.

The first question to this case is that, if she was wrongly accused for killing the man and she has served her jail term and come back, and it was later found out that the man was not dead, it then means she will be compensated by the judicial authority or the government for wrong accusation and haven't serve a jail term she's not supposed to, however if that case is settled on the compensation side on wrong accusation, then another case is going to be opened on the fact that the man wasn't dead and she went ahead in killing the man in real time, it is a fresh case all together, because it is believed that the first case has been settled and compensations have been made.

It will be much better putting oneself in same shoes of the lady, who knows how long she might have served for something which she did not do. If i should say the man deserves putting a hole on his head then it makes me look like I'm in support of the woman but the man fucked up full time. You mean he never knew the woman was in prison as being accused of killing him, in a little way he deserves to be punished but maybe not with death sentence as what the woman did, she allowed her anger took over her. So, I think she will serve as per committing the crime, if at all she did not kill him then she would have been compasated for the time spent in prison.

Justice isn't blind, we are the ones that e refused to apply it where appropriately needed, you can't expect people doing wrongs and yet they are expecting things to work out for them as being vindicated, we cannot blame some people for what they ha e done if not that we were once in that same shoe, the woman was firstly accused but later proved it that they were right of what she has been accused of.

If this story is real and the lady got arrested without any evidence shows there's something fishy, it can be as a form of conspiracy and who knows if the judge took a bribe.
In a situations like this the judge should be held responsible for any action the lady took and the judge should answer some certain questions concerning the first case, if this case appeared to be real the lawyer who took the case against the lady should be questioned too, I believe there's some behind this story but since things are done hidden no one can question. I will go with the opinion for a rearrest cause in our society we should not fight with our power but rather always report to the law officials, have seen several situations when people get arrested for what they no know about just because they made a bad decision and acted  according to their will, in this situation the lady had a second chance to prove her guiltiness but she used her power to fight back so she should be arrested.

It is not enough to assume and believe that the woman is capable of committing the crime or that people are thinking that way. She could be a prime suspect either because she is not in good terms with the husband and usually prime suspects are usually traced in such way where they are perceived as enemy and so you can also see that the assumption is wrong in the first instance where this woman was adjudged to be the committal of the murder until she had to do the real offense, so I don't think she will be imprisoned for the second time since she committed an offence once.

The time she spent in the jail for not committing the crime she was accused of would have been a reason for her not to commit a crime because this time it will be heavy on her because their is evidence to prove that the crime was committed. I think before she was accused af first it seems people already know this is a crime that she can committ. This time around she will serve the judgment for committing crime, and judgment won't compromise because she was innocent in the first accusation.

The first situation was the the judge that made the first court case was unfair, he wouldn't have done that without having any evidence against the the woman for the man's obituary, secondly, the woman has an unforgiven spirit, she would have left the man alone after discovering that he's alive, what should have been done is to sue the man and the judge back to court, then killing the man was the greatest offense of it all, because this time, she can't escape it neither.

In fact, the rules of some countries are very strict, that is, they follow their rules in such a way that even the citizens of their own country cannot imagine any mistake and the people of foreign countries are limited to itself they can't do it,they don't even give anyone a chance to make a mistake, that is, their rules and regulations are going in the right direction on such a wide scale.

There are such countries where no body can twice a mistake or repeat, they also provide a lot of security to their citizens and what is more, there is a lot of facilities

Actually, justice is not blind, because justice is what we have to do on the basis of evidence. They judge what they have, that is, how do we judge them? We judge them on the basis of evidence.

If someone has committed a crime, we have the evidence against him, then we can punish him according to what he has, but it is wrong to say that justice is blind, blind only on this basis of no availability of proof. But justice is given to the one with evidence.

I think I understand a little bit of the angle that you are going to, probably that she was mentally derailed at the time she shot the husband but to that effect, they will examine her on her mental health before the shooting, at the time of shooting and would put her on close examination to assertain if she is okay or not and most likely they would find out she is fine.

But I think that the lawyers would just plead that she has been jailed for the same offense and she has served it out. I don't think it be out of reason to plead that.

Let me tell you this vividly, there are some cases we may not just be the perfect solution provider to it because we are not there to witness the whole show, but there's a way we could use a spychology kind of approach on that, that is when the professionalism of a thing comes in here, whereby we make engagement of the use of the trained professionals in such field to assist judge the actual matter.

lawyers can use her mental health to get her a good deal
coz living with (- he husband disappereance and geting acused to murder him not knowing if is actually dead or not - Finding out he was cheating on her and living with an other woman ) can really get ur mental health down

Mostly this happens in some corrupt countries where people without connections are considered nothing in the eyes of the government and once they are proven not to have anything to defend their cases, they will automatically face the consequences. In our country, many people have become victims of this kind of behavior by policemen, when they want to be promoted, they will simply choose random guys and arrest them, putting them in a situation where they cannot ask for any help. That's why all around the world, people are losing interest in trusting the police because many of them are still unfair.

It’s almost impossible for someone to be found guilty of murder without finding the body but if with enough circumstantial evidence then the defendant could be found guilty

I’m not a lawyer nor i know anything much about the law but there’s a lot of cases where defendants are falsely accused yet they still serve time even if the crime wasn’t really done but this time around, it is clear that she had killed him so she will serve again but maybe with a lesser sentence

I'm not a lawyer, neither I'm i a law enforcement officer, but from a layman's perspective I know that we should not take laws into our hands, because there must be a punishment for every law that is broken. I guess that it is quite understandable why she had to take the law into her hands and murdered the husband, because the man probably intentionally absconded and must know about the trials of his wife and her imprisonment. So the wife must have felt that he's better off dead, since she has served time for his death.

She should have sued the government and her husband, maybe get a good good lawyer and claim heavy damages.

First the court have no right to jail her for years when their no evidence to prove if she really kid the man. It is so painful going through a punishment which you never committed. The woman who later killed the man just because of the punishment she  went through will be blamed this time around, it doesn't mean because she was innocent at first this time around she will go unpunished,  she will serve for the sin she committed this time .

Trying to murder her husband and failing in the process is as bad as murdering him, but if she never really tried to murder him and was falsely accused, then she probably doesn't deserve the prison sentence she was given for murder. If she does not deserve the sentence she served but ended up committing a crime (murder) that attracts thesame  sentence, she should still be given a fresh/thesame sentence due to the fact that murdering her husband later (or the fact she can murder her husband) is enough proof she actually deserves the first sentence. But since she already served it, an additional sentence could be given on the fact she is capable of murder which is as bad as murder itself. People are better off having her in isolation to keep the rest of the society safe from her (until she is completely reformed for good) than letting her roam about freely.

She would only deserve compensation or justice for being falsely accused of murdering her husband if after regaining her freedom they later realized she was fully innocent or never commited such crime.
You are nolonger innocent once you have become guilty of the crime you were falsely accused of. Your past innocence will no longer be counted/remembered. And it means you actually deserved the first sentence you were given in innocence. This should help people understand that anyone that is capable of committing such crime doesn't really deserve to be called innocent. The evil  was either in her growing or it was expressed in other ways like in words,thoughts etc. It's possible to murder with your words, and ofcourse thoughts

Legally you can't be sentenced twice for the same crime in most part of the world and in some extreme cases if someone was wrongfully committed for a robbery or something and done his time in prison and then found not guilty may attempt the crime and can go without any jail period.

She has already served since her punishment can not be undone. If proper investigation was carried it out. It would have help to show her innocence.
The murder was once, therefore she will serve the punishment once.
However the cause of the husband being away is also wicked and barbaric. If it had been away due to job or other conderable motives it would have been accepted. It is obvious that she was pain because while she was suffering her jail term, the man was busy enjoying himself.

That should be the simple justice on the matter. Justice is not blind if the matter is judged this way but it will be injustice if she is sent to jail for the second time while she actually committed the crime once. Such case should be handled with care as that is same person and not a different person. The earlier judgement was wrong against the alleged offender.

I don't really know where the body of the man went at first but this is a serious crime.She was charged for a crime she didn't commit and she went to jail for the number of years given to her.Now she's out and found out that the suppose dead man isn't really dead and she made it happen for real (that's a recap).

If I'm to be the judge I'd address the case as a fresh case and I'll let everyone know the true storyline and I can't sentence her for a crime she didn't comit at first which she served and now she went on to commit that same crime, I'll set her free with conviction after all she's innocent.

Sometimes justice can be blind but not always.

Actually,  justice ain't blind,  not in this world we live in.  We shouldn't be delusional enough to believe that the court is the last hope of the common man.

But in this instance,  the woman committed a crime.  If she has the right lawyers she might have gone free or with minimal sentence,  hence justice is not blind. 
So it just depend on how good your lawyers are.

Is justice really  blind?


Justice is not at all blind... not in the tiny bit of the least. All justice has been made whole by the salvation that Jesus did when He died on the cross, and arose on the third day.

Everything that is done and believed by people in this life, is to express where they will stand in God's judgment in the last day.

I think what analysis you are making about double jeopardy and the facts plus the jurisdiction of the crime is totally different. If you kill different people at different times of course you can be prosecuted for them after you have served a jail term for one and you commit the act of another person. But in the instant analogy of the op as represented in his post, he is referring to one and only person whom the accuse was sentenced and served a jail term. I believe if the offender goes to another state, he won't be tried for that same person he killed initially since he has been punished in the first place or first court.

The jail term for murder is usually very long, in cases where it is not life imprisonment. Her life has already been wasted in jail when she did kill anyone. The woman should not be made to serve any new sentence because according to the evidence that got her sentenced, the man is already dead even though his body was never found. So, the question is, can a dead man be killed again? if the man was already dead, then he is dead. If she was pardoned after a long sentence because no body was found, now that there is a body, she can go in to continue and complete her sentence.

If I am to judge in this case, the woman has a case to answer despite being punished for a crime she didn't commit.

Where she has a case to answer is taking laws into her hands by shooting her husband whereas there is military personnel that would have got the man arrested if the matter was reported to them at first.

What the woman would have done first is to have reported the matter to the police, for them to get her husband arrested for an act of defamation. For such actions of making the woman suffer the consequences of a crime she didn't commit, the woman's husband would have ultimately paid dearly.

The majority of lawyers would be willing to step forward in cases like this one to represent the accused person's interests. They will fight for the man's sentence to prison and restitution. They will ensure that the case ultimately benefits both them and the woman. By legal standards, the woman should win this case, and her husband should make amends for his actions against her by portraying himself as dead for a considerable amount of time. Instead, she was accused and punished for his death.

Well! Judges are just judging due to the evidence that is being presented to them and the result of their judgment is nothing but a job. Unless someone pays them some money to give that verdict that's when problems arise because right now we obviously know that there are some people that are willing to take some money without hesitation even though the consequences are huge. I think the woman deserves to just place in a cell for a short time because we all know she has just been frustrated because of the guy, they stole her life from her by cheating and making her a murderer.

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.

Double jeopardy?
Haha, I have seen the movie with Ashley Judd & De Niro. The plot is similar to the OP’s scenario, maybe something similar would happen in court if it happened in real life? I don’t know, I’m not a legal expert. It’s very interesting though that double jeopardy can exonerate somebody.

In some systems where the judiciary and the police are easily bought over, there can be some abnormality in justice system, we have a lot of awaiting trials victims who are left un remind or just given a jail sentence even without proper investigation and judgment.

The woman was murdered since she shot the man, the legal way she should have handled the situation is by getting the man arrested and charged with conspiracy and attempted murder on his part.

It's a fresh murder and passion crime. The sentence that she has served is the first one that's been verdict on her. If I'll be the judge, the situation is possible that she will be lessened with the verdict of years service in jail but that doesn't mean she'll not go to jail.

Justice isn't blind. The amount of money you have and your relationship with those in power influence the type of punishment you get if you have the misfortunate of getting caught for your crimes. White collar crime routinely isn't prosecuted if you have political connections to begin with, so some people never have to worry.


True, but if you're charged on a crime at your local state level, then the feds can still charge you for the same crime on the federal level because of dual sovereignty protection.

If it turns out that she planned to kill him after finding out he was living with someone else then it's gonna be murder. But if she killed him right after finding out he is living with another woman then that could be considered a crime of passion. the latter I guess serves justice.

But wy was she imprisoned when there was no corpse found? This seems impossible.

In America, you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

    Friends let's do small judiciary work and legal advice this morning. A woman was accused of killing her husband, his body was never found and she was sentenced. Years after serving her jail term, she found out the man is living with another woman.

   She went and shot the man several times and he died for real this time around and she was re-arrested for the same murder on the same person.

As a judge what will you do ?
will you address the case as a fresh murder or will you consider it as a crime she already served the term? 
                         
 lawyers, your opinion is needed. Over to you