Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am assuming for sake of argument that I would not know...but I could.
Really? That sounds like it would take a coroner or other medical professional trained to see drug use, anthrax, and the two mixed up in order to correctly ascertain cause of death.
Likewise, you are assuming that such professionals would be expensive. I actually doubt that they would be.
Medical professionals are not inexpensive. And you would also have to pay for an investigator to organise the investigation. A lawyer to do the legal stuff, etc.
If we met in the middle and assumed that they were moderately priced, the victim would either pay to confirm his suspicions, or such services would already be included in his monthly payments to the firm.
If the perpetrator was found guilty, he would then be liable for the investigative costs along with the damages just as in an insurance case involving an automobile accident.
So, justice is reserved for those who can afford some incredibly wide insurance coverage, or the rich.
And what if the drug dealer had no money to pay if they lost the trial? Many people become drug dealers because they have no other economic opportunities. There would actually be financial disincentives to go after poor criminals.
This is, of course, assuming that insurance companies can provide coverage against crime.
Now, what about if the dealer cut the drug with something like Fentanyl? And the buyer ODs. Would the same procedure take place? Except, of course, for the different punishment because of the lack of murderous intent.