4 ms·

> "it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense?" More like, it doesn't apply for cases where your defense is "I totally did it, but I'm not

> "it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense?" More like, it doesn't apply for cases where your defense is "I totally did it, but I'm not guilty because..." in such a circumstance, you're essentially hoping to convince a judge or jury that your law-breaking was OK, which is significantly more difficult and requires significantly more research than if you merely needed to convince the jury that you hadn't broken the law.

andrelaszlo 11y ago
No my point is that "I did it" and "I broke the law" are two separate things. One thing is about my actions, and the other is about how my actions are supposed to be interpreted by the law. The law is complex, and the interpretation of it is a skill we pay people a lot for. For example. Let's say I confess to killing someone, but I claim it was self defense. I "totally did it", but the self-defense is a complication. Maybe my lawyer sucks, and maybe I killed this person in the wrong state and I'll get a lethal injection. Maybe I can afford a great lawyer and I'll get out of jail (although not for free...). If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right? Or would you say that I broke the law and got away with it? The way I see it, my actions may be clear, but the legality of them are in a kind of dual state which doesn't collapse into a "guilty" or "not guilty" until there is an actual verdict. And even this is an oversimplification, of course.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  > "If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right?" Right -- and that's written in the law. There are a number of similar laws which hold that X is illegal except in circumstance Y. I'm not aware of exceptions of that form in this particular case, though, which is what makes the defense complicated -- it's not "I did it but it's not illegal", it's "I did it, it's against the law, but don't convict me because the law was wrong for this reason" which is actually a pretty difficult defense.

andrelaszlo 11y ago

No my point is that "I did it" and "I broke the law" are two separate things. One thing is about my actions, and the other is about how my actions are supposed to be interpreted by the law. The law is complex, and the interpretation of it is a skill we pay people a lot for. For example. Let's say I confess to killing someone, but I claim it was self defense. I "totally did it", but the self-defense is a complication. Maybe my lawyer sucks, and maybe I killed this person in the wrong state and I'll get a lethal injection. Maybe I can afford a great lawyer and I'll get out of jail (although not for free...). If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right? Or would you say that I broke the law and got away with it? The way I see it, my actions may be clear, but the legality of them are in a kind of dual state which doesn't collapse into a "guilty" or "not guilty" until there is an actual verdict. And even this is an oversimplification, of course.

lotharbot 11y ago
> "If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right?" Right -- and that's written in the law. There are a number of similar laws which hold that X is illegal except in circumstance Y. I'm not aware of exceptions of that form in this particular case, though, which is what makes the defense complicated -- it's not "I did it but it's not illegal", it's "I did it, it's against the law, but don't convict me because the law was wrong for this reason" which is actually a pretty difficult defense.