3 ms·

> prosecutors say he did provide the murder weapon I get that it's not fashionable to defend police and prosecutors in this zeitgeist, but this sure seems like

> prosecutors say he did provide the murder weapon I get that it's not fashionable to defend police and prosecutors in this zeitgeist, but this sure seems like it's more complicated than a simple frame job. If you don't technically pull the trigger but your friend does while you go next door to pick up a six pack and an alibi, are you really not guilty?

albertgoeswoof 8y ago
You’re not guilty of murder, you’re guilty of supplying a weapon. Perhaps you could be convicted on something related to the murder if you knew in advance that the murder was going to take place with the weapon you provided. But that’s almost impossible to prove if your bar is as high as it should be for a murder conviction.
- credit_guy 8y ago
  IANAL, but it appears to me that distinction does not exist in the US. Accessory to murder is the same as murder. “The U.S. Code effectively treats as principals those who would traditionally have been considered accessories before the fact at common law: (a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#Unite...
bilbo0s 8y ago
Prosecutors say a lot of things. For instance, they said he shot the victim. Where is the evidence that he shot the victim? Where is the evidence that he provided the weapon? These are the questions we should remain focused on when trying to ascertain guilt or innocence. Not what the prosecutor said. (Prosecutors have in-built incentives to persuade you to one side.) Nor, indeed, should we even focus too much on what the defendant said. (He could have been tortured, or he could just be lying.) Do you have evidence or not? If not, gtfo. Now in this case, the prosecutor hid evidence. And that's what complicates everything. When the prosecutors are willing to go to those lengths to cover their untruths, then there is little that can be done to check that lack of integrity given the structure of the current system. That's certainly a problem. But the idea is that if we focus on evidence we won't go wrong.
- darkerside 8y ago
  The prosecution did their job, supplied evidence, and got their conviction. If anyone failed, it's the defense.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    That's a dangerous road to go down when you imply that the prosecutor's job is to hide exculpatory evidence from the court. I definitely can't travel that road with you.
    - darkerside 8y ago
      That's not what I'm saying. And you're right to correct me. The prosecution's job included providing that evidence, and they failed.
  - cheeko1234 8y ago
    There's an amazing documentary on how terrible the system is on HBO: The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4299972/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4299972/
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

You’re not guilty of murder, you’re guilty of supplying a weapon. Perhaps you could be convicted on something related to the murder if you knew in advance that the murder was going to take place with the weapon you provided. But that’s almost impossible to prove if your bar is as high as it should be for a murder conviction.

credit_guy 8y ago
IANAL, but it appears to me that distinction does not exist in the US. Accessory to murder is the same as murder. “The U.S. Code effectively treats as principals those who would traditionally have been considered accessories before the fact at common law: (a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#Unite...

bilbo0s 8y ago

Prosecutors say a lot of things. For instance, they said he shot the victim. Where is the evidence that he shot the victim? Where is the evidence that he provided the weapon? These are the questions we should remain focused on when trying to ascertain guilt or innocence. Not what the prosecutor said. (Prosecutors have in-built incentives to persuade you to one side.) Nor, indeed, should we even focus too much on what the defendant said. (He could have been tortured, or he could just be lying.) Do you have evidence or not? If not, gtfo. Now in this case, the prosecutor hid evidence. And that's what complicates everything. When the prosecutors are willing to go to those lengths to cover their untruths, then there is little that can be done to check that lack of integrity given the structure of the current system. That's certainly a problem. But the idea is that if we focus on evidence we won't go wrong.

darkerside 8y ago
The prosecution did their job, supplied evidence, and got their conviction. If anyone failed, it's the defense.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  That's a dangerous road to go down when you imply that the prosecutor's job is to hide exculpatory evidence from the court. I definitely can't travel that road with you.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    That's not what I'm saying. And you're right to correct me. The prosecution's job included providing that evidence, and they failed.
- cheeko1234 8y ago
  There's an amazing documentary on how terrible the system is on HBO: The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4299972/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4299972/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]