3 ms·

Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murd

Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murderer had knowledge of the Sixth Amendment and this loophole. The case makes it's way to the Supreme Court. But because of the bizarre nature of the loophole SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear appeal and lets the conviction stand. This is how the law could be enforced while technically violating the Sixth Amendment.

littlestymaar 6y ago
If it's premeditated, it has likely been premeditated somewhere else. If so, isn't the premeditation in itself a crime for which you could be prosecuted (in the place where you planned everything).
- jackhalford 6y ago
  So technically the planning and premeditation also needs to be done in the death zone.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Ummm, no. While premeditation enhances the murder charge and mens rea is a very important legal concept, thoughts are not crimes.
  - MrZongle2 6y ago
    Not yet.
  - anamexis 6y ago
    If they told someone else about it before hand, could it be conspiracy?
  - saluki 6y ago
    Until we have PreCrime.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I've listened to several podcasts! If you have planned the murder with someone else, that is a conspiracy, which is a serious crime in itself. You don't even need to attempt the murder. If you were just premeditating in your own mind, that is not a crime. Though it might be a factor in sentencing for the actual crime. If the premeditation involves writing down plans with maps etc, then... I haven't listened to that episode yet.
  - lqet 6y ago
    > If the premeditation involves writing down plans with maps etc, then... Just add a preface: "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental."
eganist 6y ago
> Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murderer had knowledge of the Sixth Amendment and this loophole. The case makes it's way to the Supreme Court. But because of the bizarre nature of the loophole SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear appeal and lets the conviction stand. This is how the law could be enforced while technically violating the Sixth Amendment. How would a conviction take place without a jury? Even in the Belderrain case in the Montana section of the park, a jury was never formed; there was only an initial ruling that a trial could move forward despite the risk of partiality, but the case was settled with a plea agreement where the defendant waived any right to pursuing the Zone of Death legal challenge. (can an attorney fact-check me here, by the way? I'm definitely not one)
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > How would a conviction take place without a jury? I believe the parent's point was that it could take place with a jury from anywhere else, thereby violating the letter of the 6th amendment, but without this having an effect: The convicted person would have to appeal the conviction, but no higher court would decide to hear the appeal. (I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just writing down my understanding of what the parent said.)

littlestymaar 6y ago

If it's premeditated, it has likely been premeditated somewhere else. If so, isn't the premeditation in itself a crime for which you could be prosecuted (in the place where you planned everything).

jackhalford 6y ago
So technically the planning and premeditation also needs to be done in the death zone.
jaywalk 6y ago
Ummm, no. While premeditation enhances the murder charge and mens rea is a very important legal concept, thoughts are not crimes.
- MrZongle2 6y ago
  Not yet.
- anamexis 6y ago
  If they told someone else about it before hand, could it be conspiracy?
- saluki 6y ago
  Until we have PreCrime.
BurningFrog 6y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I've listened to several podcasts! If you have planned the murder with someone else, that is a conspiracy, which is a serious crime in itself. You don't even need to attempt the murder. If you were just premeditating in your own mind, that is not a crime. Though it might be a factor in sentencing for the actual crime. If the premeditation involves writing down plans with maps etc, then... I haven't listened to that episode yet.
- lqet 6y ago
  > If the premeditation involves writing down plans with maps etc, then... Just add a preface: "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental."

eganist 6y ago

> Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murderer had knowledge of the Sixth Amendment and this loophole. The case makes it's way to the Supreme Court. But because of the bizarre nature of the loophole SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear appeal and lets the conviction stand. This is how the law could be enforced while technically violating the Sixth Amendment. How would a conviction take place without a jury? Even in the Belderrain case in the Montana section of the park, a jury was never formed; there was only an initial ruling that a trial could move forward despite the risk of partiality, but the case was settled with a plea agreement where the defendant waived any right to pursuing the Zone of Death legal challenge. (can an attorney fact-check me here, by the way? I'm definitely not one)

tom_mellior 6y ago
> How would a conviction take place without a jury? I believe the parent's point was that it could take place with a jury from anywhere else, thereby violating the letter of the 6th amendment, but without this having an effect: The convicted person would have to appeal the conviction, but no higher court would decide to hear the appeal. (I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just writing down my understanding of what the parent said.)