An enigma regarding double jeopardy laws
<p>I am currently debating this with my friend.</p>
<p>So in a hypothetical situation, Person A was falsely accused of a horrible crime, like say, rape or murder. However, Person A was found guilty anyway because of a lack of evidence to defend themselves. Person A serves some time in prison and is eventually released years later when evidence is found that they are not guilty.</p>
<p>My friend's claim is that Person A can now go out and fulfill this crime that they were falsely accused of with no legal repercussion. As they were already technically punished for this crime. He claims that double jeopardy laws prevent this person from being prosecuted twice on the same crime.</p>
<p>My claim is that Person A can not fulfill this crime without legal repercussion. My reasoning is because even though they already served time in prison for this crime, Double Jeopardy laws regard this as a second and separate punishable offense instead of a continuation of the first false accusation.</p>

<p>(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separate_sovereigns_doctrine" rel="noreferrer">separate state and federal prosecutions</a> or foreign prosecutions).</p>

<p>I think the basis for this claim is the 1999 Double Jeopardy film. <strong>But it doesn't work that way!</strong></p>
<p>Let's assume the horrible crime is µing somebody. Insert to your liking any crime for µ... or even jaywalking.</p>
<p>Person A was (falsely) charged to have <em>µed Person B on AA/BB/YYYY</em> and convicted. Now they somehow really <em>µed B on CC/DD/ZZZZ</em> after the conviction. That's a <strong>different</strong> incident with different facts, and thus a <strong>different</strong> crime, for which a new trial and a new conviction is to be sought.</p>

double-jeopardy false-arrest