Antitrust. Double Jeopardy & Due Process. Successive Prosecutions of the Same Defendant for One Conspiracy Violate the Double Jeopardy Provision of the Fifth Amendment, and Successive Prosecutions of Alleged Separate Conspiracies Stemming from a Single Course of Conduct May and under the Circumstances Do Violate Due Process

1968 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 536 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Fifth Amendment

Vicarious Justifications for Prejudice in the Application of Democratic Values

2021 ◽  
pp. 194855062110407
Author(s):  
Mark H. White ◽  
Christian S. Crandall ◽  
Nicholas T. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Rhetorical Device ◽  
Nationally Representative

Democratic values are widely endorsed principles including commitments to protect individual freedoms. Paradoxically, the widespread normativity of these ideas can be used to justify prejudice. With two nationally representative U.S. samples, we find that prejudiced respondents defend another’s prejudiced speech, using democratic values as justification. This vicarious defense occurs primarily among those who share the prejudice and only when the relevant prejudice is expressed. Several different democratic values (e.g., due process, double jeopardy) can serve as justifications—the issue is more about when something can be used as a justification for prejudice and less about what can be used as one. Endorsing democratic values can be a common rhetorical device to expand what is acceptable and protect what is otherwise unacceptable to express in public.

Part II Legal Challenges, 6 European Antitrust Criminalization and the Second Challenge of Due Process: Imposing Criminal Sanctions alongside Civil Sanctions

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whelan Peter
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Legal Requirement ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Actual Impact ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Process Issue ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

This chapter evaluates the ‘additional dynamic’ contention which holds that the introduction of criminal antitrust sanctions in a particular jurisdiction does not preclude the imposition of civil/administrative sanctions alongside criminal sanctions for a given cartel. After establishing the validity of this contention, the chapter determines the actual impact of the contention, and hence the extent of the challenge presented by this aspect of the legal requirement of due process. A potential due process issue was identified with the exchange of information from administrative antitrust regimes to criminal antitrust regimes. The second identified issue of due process concerned ‘double jeopardy’. It was argued that this issue becomes relevant due to: (i) the validity of the ‘additional dynamic’ contention; and (ii) the fact that an individual can in fact constitute an ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of EU law. The final identified issue of due process related to concurrent proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document