double jeopardy
C1/C2Formal/Legal/Academic
Definition
Meaning
The legal principle that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense.
Any situation where someone faces two distinct risks, disadvantages, or punishments arising from the same action or event.
Linguistics
Semantic Notes
Primarily a legal term that has been extended metaphorically to general use. In law, it's a specific constitutional protection; in everyday use, it describes any scenario of being unfairly penalized twice.
Dialectal Variation
British vs American Usage
Differences
The legal principle exists in both jurisdictions but originates from and is most famously enshrined in the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment. In the UK, the principle is part of common law and was codified in statute later.
Connotations
In the US, it carries strong constitutional and civil rights connotations. In the UK, it is a recognized legal principle but without the same foundational constitutional weight.
Frequency
More frequent in American English due to its prominence in popular culture (TV legal dramas, news).
Vocabulary
Collocations
Grammar
Valency Patterns
[Subject] faces double jeopardy for [action/offense].The law protects [accused] from double jeopardy.It would be double jeopardy to [verb phrase].Vocabulary
Synonyms
Strong
Neutral
Weak
Vocabulary
Antonyms
Phrases
Idioms & Phrases
- “It's double jeopardy – they fined him and took his licence.”
Usage
Context Usage
Business
Refers to a situation where a single mistake leads to two separate financial penalties or regulatory actions.
Academic
Discussed in law, political science, and philosophy regarding justice, fairness, and legal system design.
Everyday
Used metaphorically to complain about being unfairly penalized twice for one error (e.g., grounded and phone taken).
Technical
A specific legal doctrine with defined tests (e.g., "same elements" test in the US, "autrefois acquit/convict" in UK common law).
Examples
By Part of Speech
adjective
British English
- The double-jeopardy principle is fundamental.
- They raised a double-jeopardy objection.
American English
- The Double Jeopardy Clause is in the Fifth Amendment.
- It was a double-jeopardy situation.
Examples
By CEFR Level
- The lawyer said it was double jeopardy to fine him twice for the same mistake.
- After being acquitted, he cannot be retried for the same crime due to the protection against double jeopardy.
- Losing her job and then being sued felt like double jeopardy.
- The prosecution's attempt to charge him on a novel legal theory based on the same facts was barred as a violation of the double jeopardy clause.
- The philosophical debate centres on whether civil asset forfeiture following a criminal trial constitutes a form of double jeopardy.
Learning
Memory Aids
Mnemonic
Think of a game show called 'Jeopardy!' where you wouldn't have to answer the SAME costly question TWICE (double).
Conceptual Metaphor
JUSTICE IS A SINGLE, FINAL JUDGMENT (being subjected to multiple judgments for one act is an injustice).
Watch out
Common Pitfalls
Translation Traps (for Russian speakers)
- Avoid a calque like "двойная опасность". The established legal term is "двойная ответственность" or "повторное привлечение к ответственности".
- The core concept is about punishment/trial, not just danger ('jeopardy' in modern legal English doesn't mean опасность here).
Common Mistakes
- Using it to mean simply 'a double risk' or 'two dangers' without the core idea of unfair duplication from the same source.
- Confusing it with 'dual sovereignty' doctrine (where two *different* governments can prosecute for the same act, which is *not* considered double jeopardy in the US).
Practice
Quiz
In which context is 'double jeopardy' used INCORRECTLY?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Not exactly. It prevents being tried twice for the same offence by the same sovereign (government). Separate state and federal prosecutions in the US (dual sovereignty) or a retrial after a successful appeal are typically allowed.
Yes, it's commonly used metaphorically in everyday language to describe any situation where one faces two negative consequences for a single action, though this is an extension of the core legal meaning.
This is legally complex. Many jurisdictions use the 'same elements' test: if the two charges require proof of the same facts, they are the same offence. Different legal theories arising from the same act may still be barred.
The principle is recognised in many common law and civil law systems (e.g., in the European Convention on Human Rights), but its specific interpretation and exceptions vary significantly by country.