Double Jeopardy Rule Scrapped

The legal principle of "double jeopardy" stipulates that if you are tried for a crime and found innocent, then the government cannot try you again for the same crime. The idea is that the government, with all its power and resources, could easily harass a person or group by continually trying them for the same charges in an attempt to either finally get a jury that will convict or to simply wear the accused down, forcing them into bankruptcy or even into accepting a plea bargain. Britain, where the principle of double jeopardy originated, is now deciding to get rid of it (at least in some circumstances).

The Houston Chronicle reports:

But under the Criminal Justice Bill, introduced by Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, a person acquitted of certain serious offenses will face a second trial if compelling new details, such as DNA evidence, come to light. ... After intense talks Thursday, the Lords backed government plans for judge-only trials in cases where there is a danger a jury could be intimidated. The government in return agreed to put shelve its plans to scrap juries in complex fraud cases.

Although I am sure that there are extreme cases where such measures seem like they would make sense, I have to say that I find such developments to be deeply disturbing. Who decides when evidence is "compelling" enough to dismiss the principle of double jeopardy - and upon what standards? Who decides when there is enough danger to simply dismiss the idea of a jury trial and go straight to a judge? I'm not sure that I like where all of that is leading.