Crossing the Line Between Rough Remedial Justice and Prohibited Punishment: Civil Penalty Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause—United States v. Halper, 109 S. Ct. 1892 (1989)

Authors

Lynn C. Hall

Abstract

Historically, the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy has been triggered primarily in criminal prosecutions. It has not encompassed civil monetary penalties. In United States v. Halper, the Supreme Court expanded double jeopardy protection. The Court held that government imposition of a civil monetary penalty on a defendant who has been criminally convicted for the same offense is punishment to the extent that the penalty clearly exceeds compensation. The punitive portion of the civil penalty, according to the Court, is multiple punishment prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause. This Note examines Halper and its effect on legislatures, prosecutors, and courts. The Author concludes that the Court's application of double jeopardy protection effectively protects convicted defendants, but should be extended to protect acquitted defendants from punitive civil penalties.

First Page

437

Recommended Citation

Lynn C. Hall, Note, Crossing the Line Between Rough Remedial Justice and Prohibited Punishment: Civil Penalty Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause—United States v. Halper, 109 S. Ct. 1892 (1989), 65 Wash. L. Rev. 437 (1990).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol65/iss2/14