我自己放的火自己来收拾一下。因推文可能会超过四行所以用回应方式处理，合先叙明。 首先感谢：astr及AREOUL两位前辈提供相关文献。AREOUL前辈提到英文维基有关这部电 影条目的说明。我立即前往查阅： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_(film)，里面提到法律分析时略称： Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz criticized the movie for misrepresenting the legal doctrine of double jeopardy, a constitutional right in the United States granted by the Fifth Amendment.This particular legal doctrine would not apply to the events portrayed in the film, as it only prevents someone from being put under trial for the same set of facts twice. Regarding the movie,the first (fake) killing and the second (real) one would constitute two different crimes. Therefore,double jeopardy does not apply to them. 接着再到astr前辈指引的 http://ppt.cc/Nzpz 即 http//web.archive.org/web/20080121055135/http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/ mjeopardy.htm 该文倒数第二段评论这部电影时说：In the eponymous movie,Ashley Judd plays a woman wrongly convicted for her husband's murder; the man had faked his death and let his wife take the rap.Judd's character discovers the truth and tracks down the husband intending to kill him for his betrayal,reasoning that since she's been convicted once for his murder, double jeopardy would protect her from prosecution. Not so in real life: a crime, for double jeopardy purposes, consists of a specific set of facts.Change the facts and you've got a new crime– the murder of Richard Roe on Wednesday, December 8th, in New York City is not the same crime in double jeopardy analysis as the murder of Richard Roe in New York City on Friday, February 5th, even though it's the same victim. 上述说明与我的理解并没有重大差距，事实不同就构成两个犯罪，当然不能适用 double jeopardy原则。正如astr前辈所说：「法理到哪里都差不多 」旨哉斯言也！倒是 我前文推文内所引用的高点黄律师电子报：http://tinyurl.com/28v6kf2，其见解应属少 数说吧！ 再次感激大家的启发，尤其是astr及AREOUL两位前辈的指引，解答了我心中多年的疑问！ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.224.41.45 ※ 编辑: kcchen 来自: 61.216.3.125 (08/28 01:35)