A year and a day... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14859045
A while back I read an article about a guy who served 10 years for attempted murder and 20 years after he was released he was arrested for murder because his victim finally died. The article talked about how the year and a day clause had been extended, to 3 years and a day or 5 years and a day, and how in New York there was no time limit just a need to link the cause of death to the initial act. The article mentioned double jeopardy but didn't give an explanation for the reasoning behind it. So my question is why isn't this double jeopardy and why can't we just charge people with every version of murder, manslaughter and homicide whenever they kill someone?

► Show Spoiler

*I couldn't track down the article online (on Buzzfeed) but this is from a pdf I created to read on my kindle.
By ness31
#14859089
I’ve not heard of this ^^^ happening. The only comparison I can make is of a bank robber completing a sentence in one state and upon release police swoop (because it’s always a swoop :roll: ) to rearrest them for crimes committed in other jurisdictions.

at the center of it all were two men, one too poor to afford better medical care as his health deteriorated and the other too poor to afford a stronger legal team to protect him from this exceptionally long arm of the law.


That sums it up for me though. And the fact that he didn’t keep his nose clean after the initial release probably didn’t help his cause. :hmm:
Regarding it being double jeopardy..hm, they charged him for different crimes so it doesn’t apply. Was it an ethical way to apply the law? Well, was it ethical of the perp to shoot a man in the back and doom him zero life quality?
#14859249
Good, justice served.

You can't charge someone with every type of murder when they kill someone because each type has its own definition in a court of law.

This case is different as the out come of the crime fits the requirements for a conviction for both attempted murder and murder as the victim eventually died from his injuries.

Personally I'd like to see the guy put in a wheelchair of his own but then again I'm not sure that's the kind of society I want to live in.
User avatar
By Ter
#14859257
ness31 wrote:Well, was it ethical of the perp to shoot a man in the back and doom him zero life quality?

I feel the same way.
I cannot feel sympathy for this criminal.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14859764
The whole point of the rule of law is that your feelings are irrelevant.

Back on topic, why not charge every murderer with battery, assault and grievous bodily harm/ actual bodily harm?
User avatar
By Ter
#14859771
AFAIK wrote:The whole point of the rule of law is that your feelings are irrelevant.

Back on topic, why not charge every murderer with battery, assault and grievous bodily harm/ actual bodily harm?


You are just aping TIG and others mentioning feelings.
I thought you were better than this.

You definitely started this thread because you felt that an injustice was done to that criminal. So I propose not to go down that road.

Judges definitely let their feelings play a role when determining the punishment of criminals, within certain legal limits.

As was said, the actions of the criminal spoiled the whole life of the victim and his diseases and subsequent death were attributed to his paralysis. So attempted murder became murder.
#14859949
This a tough one for me, I've actually never thought of this scenario before and its seem entirely possible to happen more often than one would think....

I can see the legal case to be made for why he was sent back to prison, and it would seem to be the same principle as a criminal who rapes a woman and serves his time and after release has to pay child support for a child that was only later confirmed (after his release) to have been his biological child as a consequence of that rape. It seems if the latter is just the former is just under similar principles.

I guess a suggestion to avoid such awkward legal scenarios is for criminals who cause injury to pay a one-time restitution fee for injuries in addition to whatever sentencing the state may require; thus, in serving that time and paying that restitution he has fulfilled his obligation under the law and even a later death, even if physically linked, would be legally separate from the initial crime.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14860152
Ter wrote:You are just aping TIG and others mentioning feelings.
I thought you were better than this.

You definitely started this thread because you felt that an injustice was done to that criminal. So I propose not to go down that road.

I don't give a shit about anyone in the article. It was just a case study and the dude's death and other dude's imprisonment has no effect on me whatsoever. If that was my angle I'd have posted this in the human interest section.

Limiting criminal liability to a year and a day is an objective hard line that can not be overruled if a doctor, lawyer or judge feel that a death that occurred 18 months after the fact is directly attributable to the initial crime.

@Victoribus Spolia
What happens if you can't afford to pay though? Get sent to debtors' prison? I think the implementation of restitution would be too controversial.

jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:Because murder covers all of that already, attempted murder doesn't cover someone's eventual death from their injuries.

Battery and assault are usually the same action, yet you can be charged with both if you punch someone.
#14860203
AFAIK wrote:What happens if you can't afford to pay though? Get sent to debtors' prison? I think the implementation of restitution would be too controversial.


All for debtor's prison actually.....we'd be a more prosperous and more self-controlled society if we had such a thing. The fact is, almost any reform of the current criminal system is going to be controversial because the only real solutions that would simultaneously be successful and financial responsible would require getting tougher, and that is never popular in our limp-wristed and apathetic society where personal weakeness and societal self-loathing are espoused as virtues.
User avatar
By Vlerchan
#14860218
I think he should be convicted of murder, but:

I also think that if our medical knowledge has advanced such that the chain of causation can be established the distance of this case then it might make sense to amend our definitions of attempted murder such that they take into account that the fact that the victim has not died (the case in Scotland). Then, if one is convicted of attempted murder, and serves time in that regard, then if it is the case that the victim later dies as a result of their assault, it might be reasonable to bring the time already served into consideration when sentencing for the murder - the sentence for attempted murder being invalidated.

Irrespective, demonstrations of genuine personal reform should probably be brought into consideration during sentencing in cases like these. Outside of sating some lust for punishment, it probably doesn't do a whole lot of good for society to keep reformed individuals locked up.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I guess a suggestion to avoid such awkward legal scenarios is for criminals who cause injury to pay a one-time restitution fee for injuries in addition to whatever sentencing the state may require; thus, in serving that time and paying that restitution he has fulfilled his obligation under the law and even a later death, even if physically linked, would be legally separate from the initial crime.

Would this not amount to treating murderers differently on the basis of how they set about murdering their victim?
#14860350
Vlerchan wrote:Would this not amount to treating murderers differently on the basis of how they set about murdering their victim?


No. because in the example we are speaking about the intended end of immediately killing the individual was thwarted and the death that came later was a delayed consequence that was not itself intended; thus, the solution I propose would distinguish between the person who is the subject of this discussion and a person who intentionally intends to kill someone through a delayed means. If someone intentionally tried to kill somebody by inflicting an injury that would not immediately kill but result in eventual death, so long as that intention could be demonstrated I have no problem prosecuting that as straight murder; however, if that same person attempted such a tactic and failed, he would be liable for attempted murder and restitution.

In sum, if a person is charged with attempted murder, the tacit assumption is that the murder as intended failed and I propose that such a person be tried on that crime-of-intent and only pay restitution for said injuries. This is a fulfillment of what is the actual crime and the delayed death as a result of injuries was not the murder attempted. You should not serve time for a crime that assumes a murder attempt was failed and then serve the contrary after first being release as if the former was a mistrial. That is the conundrum in this whole thing, to serve time for murder for delayed injuries after already serving attempted murder is to assume that one can be punished for contradictory crimes. Either the murder failed or it didn't and the right to a speedy trial requires a swift determination of which crime was committed and both could not have been committed simultaneously.

My solution solves the problem and can account for intentionally killing someone via delayed means as a separate case.
User avatar
By Vlerchan
#14860359
Victoribus Spolia wrote:because in the example we are speaking about the intended end of immediately killing the individual was thwarted and the death that came later was a delayed consequence that was not itself intended; thus, the solution I propose would distinguish between the person who is the subject of this discussion and a person who intentionally intends to kill someone through a delayed means.

Registering this distinction in law would require introducing the idea of intention to cause immediate death - as distinct from intention to cause delayed death. So if you intended to cause an immediate death, and it ended up being delayed, then you're only liable for attempted murder. Correct me if I'm wrong.

For someone to avoid being convicted of intention to cause delayed death, they only have to raise some doubt towards the idea they had intended an immediate death. 'I thought the poison was fast-acting!' or something to that effect. Well.

To put this into perspective, in the country I'm from it's rare someone even get's charged with 'attempted murder' because it requires demonstration that one intended to cause death - murder, on the other hand, requires intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Intending death is already a high standard, but intending a speed of death is probably out of the reach of prosecutors in all but the most clear-cut cases.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:but result in eventual death [...]

If this is eventual death, ex ante, then outside of putting someone into a permanent coma I can't imagine a single conviction on this standard.

If it is death, ex post then we are left with the issue outlined above. Demonstrating that someone had intended a delayed death is a very high standard.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is a fulfillment of what is the actual crime and the delayed death as a result of injuries was not the murder attempted.

I disagree with this though it's irrelevant to my criticisms of your standard.

If I attempt to murder someone, and it takes longer than I anticipated for them to be left dead, I have still murdered them.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:You should not serve time for a crime that assumes a murder attempt was failed and then serve the contrary after first being release as if the former was a mistrial.

In the case of the US, the former would not have been a mistrial. He's being convicted for two different crimes. Had the victim had died immediately following the attack, the defendant would still have been liable for attempted murder. The reason that charge isn't brought usually, is because the mens rea - intention to murder - is harder to demonstrate than the mens rea for murder. If you can demonstrate murder, you've secured the maximum sentence - if you can't demonstrate murder, you certainly won't be able to demonstrate attempted murder.

So the contradiction you pose doesn't, within American law, exist.

My solution solves the problem and can account for intentionally killing someone via delayed means as a separate case.

In my opinion, your solution does little to further justice, and at best serves to increase defense lawyer's average number of billable hours.
#14860407
AFAIK wrote:Battery and assault are usually the same action, yet you can be charged with both if you punch someone.

Assault is the credible threat to harm someone, battery is the execution of said threat.

In this case the guy attempted to kill his victim which he ultimately did and should be charged accordingly.

The only thing I would consider putting in his favour would be to deduct the years he has served for manslaughter from his sentence for murder.
#14860688
@Vlerchan,

Would you say that "attempted murder" should be eliminated as a category altogether? It seems that this is your insinuation via way of objection to my argument as "attempted murder" is a definition I am assuming as a form of crime.

I am not opposed to eliminating that category for the reasons you seem to outline in critique, but my argument assumes such as a constant and not a variable and therefore my solution was intended to work in that paradigm. If we are talking about the specific example under discussion, we are talking about such a paradigm, to speak of the problem with my solution on the basis that discerning intention, as is the case in all "Attempted murder" instances (which you note), would be to critique the paradigm itself and not so much my specific solution. Which is not entirely fair, but I am open to the notion of eliminating any crime that is by definition determined by motivation.

You have to be in a hierarchical structure right?[…]

Thread stinks of Nazi Bandera desperation, trying[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

This is an interesting concept that China, Russia[…]

We have totally dominant hate filled ideology. T[…]