|
It's hardly a wild conspiracy theory that some laws are intentionally difficult to adhere with. But what about where the law as written makes it nearly impossible to not commit a crime? Say the law makes it an offense to move obstructingly slow defined as under 5 mph OR wrecklessly fast defined as over 4 mph? Or you are a dual-citizen and the country you're staying in mandates every randomly chosen adult must register with the military and be sworn in as a reservist, while your other nationality's laws makes it illegal to join any foreign military in any capacity? Is there a fancy term in Latin for such situations or the defence that you only broke the law as a result of such a situation? I'm not seriously in need of answers but I do find it darkly comical.
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
It is a criminal offense to neglect your patriotic duty and not be incarcerated in a private for-profit prison for at least 2 years in every 15 year period. How you end up in there is up to you!ulmont posted:For the first scenario (law from the same jurisdiction bans speeds below or above 5mph), you can generally raise an impossibility defense. I could have given a better example where it's not the same law mandating an impossible speed. Like say you have a court-ordered appointment with your parole officer at 4:30 PM but there's a curfew starting at 4:00 PM. Bright Bart fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Aug 13, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
Sorry if I'm going off the current topic, but it really interests me: I've seen more than one movie where someone is on trail for something, then there's a twist a different person is arrested for the same crime, but the first trial continues and they have to be found not guilty. This is inclusive of crimes where there can only really be one person responsible. So I have a few questions and please feel free to answer as many or as few as you wish. Thank you. 1. In what way(s) does the fact that the police arrested someone else for the crime you are on trial for help the defendant? Does it just lead to reasonable doubt or is it grounds for a mistrial? 2. Can a person be charged with a crime if another person is already on trial for said crime? If so, does the person awaiting trial get off as soon as someone else is convicted? 3. If a person is still under investigation for a crime someone else is on trial for, does the investigation have to cease the moment the other person is convicted? 4. Can you start an investigation and arrest someone for a crime someone has already been convicted of, if e.g. the police authorities and DA and alter a judge all sign off? Or is there a principle or body of law preventing this? 5. Can a case go to trial if someone has already been convicted of the same crime? (I don't mean as an accomplice or a second person doing a similar crime.) If so, is the fact that someone else has already been convicted for the crime you're charged with grounds for dismissal or merely a defense? (I'm obviously presuming you cannot be found guilty and sentenced. At some point there has to be a mechanism to prevent that but I'm not sure if that's an automatic dismissal, or a defense which is a jury discounts gets the judge involved, or an appeal.) In all of the above I'm referring to how it works legally and not in some miscarriage of justice. Bright Bart fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 13:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The root issue you seem to be coming up against (and perhaps overcomplicating) is that the police and prosecutor are, for court purposes, basically all the same entity, one sports team working together towards one goal. Just like the coach doesn't have the team try to get two different balls down the field at once, the police don't pursue two separate, contradictory defendants at once; they pick one and go after that one. If they pick a different one they typically just drop the first one. Thank you for the response! As for an additional person being guilty, I understand. But lets say there's a masked streaker during a football game. (imagine there's taking this really seriously for some reason, I just like this example because it's not sad.) Joe is arrested and tried and found guilty of being the masked streaker. But then a separate investigator brings it up with a separate DA and a separate judge (we can imagine that the first one is retiring and not hearing new issues just to make it easier) and all agree that Owen is much more likely to be the streaker and so arrest, charge, and send him to trial. Again, for being the masked streaker. Not for helping Joe or instigating the streaking. Does Owen get off the moment Joe is convicted? In my example, the prosecutor doesn't want to drop the charges against Owen. He believes the evidence (e.g. analysis of moles on the streaker's body) much more clearly points to Owen than Joe. This is overcomplicating it for sure. I'm not asking whether I have to worry about being arrested for a crime someone else obviously committed. I'm just wondering if it all relies on the common sense of the authorities or if there is something explicit in the law.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Like HA said - prosecutors can drop charges at any time. If they do not, then the onus is on the defense to move to dismiss, either orally during trial or via written motion, and the judge will grant the motion if meritorious. Because I can see cases where the prosecutors might not wish to. Such as if the person simultaneously committed crimes that would be investigated by and trailed through different systems such as federal charges investigated by the FBI and others by local police. Then if the two parties come to entirely different conclusions as to the identity of a person... Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sometimes you have overlapping jurisdictions but then generally one controls and takes over (e.g., the feds coming in) and the others do what they're told. Ah. Didn't catch that before posting the above.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 13:39
|
|