4 ms·
So he freely admits to doing that? Would the state not prosecute him for his crimes? It seems there would be a decent amount of evidence.
by everyone 6y ago
So he freely admits to doing that? Would the state not prosecute him for his crimes? It seems there would be a decent amount of evidence.
- wmeredith 6y agoI had the same question. Previous Canonballers have waited until statutes of limitations have run out before publishing their exploits.
- jagged-chisel 6y agoYou're welcome to freely admit committing all manner of crimes. The police can't just arrest you because you ran your mouth. There must be evidence. Now, if they can tie your confession with evidence they have, perhaps they have a case. You can't be arrested, tried, and sentenced for such fictional bluster about a crime that didn't happen. And, as far as due process goes, there's no crime without, at a minimum, a witness/complainant, and hopefully some amount of evidence. So the question becomes: assuming all this actually happened, do the authorities have evidence that it did, and can they tie it to the guy that has confessed?
- everyone 6y ago"there's no crime without, at a minimum, a witness/complainant," what? If, for example, the police found the body of someone who'd been murdered. There would be an investigation. No witness or complainant needed.
- jagged-chisel 6y agoThat rises above/past complainant into evidence. Fits perfectly into the intent of my comment.
- beervirus 6y agoYour confession is evidence. You can absolutely be arrested and convicted based only on a confession.
- jagged-chisel 6y agoHow about confessing to a crime that doesn’t exist?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- beervirus 6y agoYou're thinking of corpus delicti, I assume? Lots of states have loosened that rule to something that's pretty easy to satisfy--basically that the prosecution just needs to show some evidence that the confession is trustworthy. So independent evidence proving that the crime exists is not always required anymore.