system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Double Jeopardy should not exist in cases whether the evidence is so overwhelming that it is clear that the defendant was the perpetrator.

I just got done watching a really good JCS Criminal Psychology video (hopefully you guys know the channel, it's really good) on the Casey Anthony Case recently. Now, I remember when the trial happened and vaguely remember the details (I was in my 20s but I only heard about it from the news and tabloids). But watching the actual interrogations and phone interviews Casey Anthony had, it is clear that Anthony was responsible for her daughter's death. Even the jurors agreed some time later after the trial that they should have convicted, albeit on a lesser charge. Besides her sociopathic total disregard for her missing (at the time) child, the evidence showed that it could have been no one else responsible but her. That got me thinking if Double Jeopardy is actually a good thing or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Double Jeopardy exists to where you can't be arrested and charged for the same crime over and over again once you would found not guilty. In theory, this is a good thing because the justice system could be abused in such a way for reasons such as revenge, political retribution, continuing to hold a suspect indefinitely, etc. However, I have been questioning in cases where the evidence is clear that the defendant was responsible or, if more evidence comes out that further proves culpability, whether it is fair for them to not receive the justice they deserve for the crime they committed. I'm on the side of if the evidence is overwhelming as to clearly demonstrate that they're guilty, that they should be held to account if a jury found them not guilty the first time. For instance, if DNA evidence or a video shows that a person was clearly responsible for the crime, if they were tried and found not guilty the first time, what good reason would there be to not try them again and make sure they receive the punishment?

What do you think? Why and how should I change my view? Don't just stick to the inspiration for this post (Casey Anthony Case).
gpt
If the evidence was so clear then they would have been convicted the first time around. If the evidence is unclear then you’re just allowing the government to use a lower bar to put people in prison, they get to prosecute anyone over and over again until they get their verdict. Maybe until they impoverish the defendant and they are forced to use a public defender with few resources. 

You need to let go of cases that seem clear to you and realize the principle that you are advocating would imperil any innocent person the government didn’t like.