3 ms·
Not a lawyer, but did go to law school. I definitely see why the author of the original paper found this interesting (and it's infinitely more interesting that
by the_watcher 10y ago
Not a lawyer, but did go to law school. I definitely see why the author of the original paper found this interesting (and it's infinitely more interesting that 99.9% of law journal articles). I also agree that it's an arguable loophole that should be closed.
That said, there's an entire branch of law related to moving trials amongst jurisdictions, oftentimes to venues with very, very tenuous relationships to the crime. If any part of the crime took place somewhere that had an ability to seat a jury (and judges have ruled that things like purchasing an item used in the crime can qualify in some cases), the prosecutor wouldn't have much trouble getting it removed there.
- ghaff 10y agoYeah, I first read this a number of years ago. It's analogous to when programmers find some exploitable corner case and go "Gotcha!" But, meanwhile, in the real world, a judge says "Nope" and finds some reason to do the sensible thing. Law isn't (and really shouldn't be in spite of sometimes bad results) a matter of applying precise algorithms.
- fapjacks 10y agoRight, I feel like the law doesn't have loopholes for things like violent crime. Some kind of twisty scenic routes might work for cornering the market or employing dragnet surveillance on a population. But you swing a crowbar at somebody for their wallet, you're pretty much going to jail, even if you think you've got some kind of genius loophole.
- the_watcher 10y agoMost of the time, that's true. Unfortunately, as the OJ trial demonstrates, it's not universally true.