3 ms·
"doesn't a murder conviction usually require proof that person X actually did the killing?" No. Murder, and Rape, commonly promote the crime from conspiracy/ac
by NikkiA 17y ago
"doesn't a murder conviction usually require proof that person X actually did the killing?"
No. Murder, and Rape, commonly promote the crime from conspiracy/accomplice to the full crime (murder, rape). Presumably because the stakes are so high for these types of crime, and traditional sentencing for 'accomplice to...' or 'conspiracy to commit' cases is so much lower, that people could game the justice system somewhat.
For example, if you hire a hitman to take out your wife/husband, you WILL be tried as the murderer, as will the hitman. If you conspire with a lover to kill someone, you will be tried as a murderer, no matter who is holding the murder weapon.
Perhaps it's different in America, although I'm sure there have been cases I've heard about in the US that fall under the same rules as those above, and where the conspirators were tried as murderers themselves.
- davidw 17y agoI'm not talking about conspiracy to kill someone, but about a situation like this: say 4 or 5 guys are picking on someone outside a bar, hitting him and so on. One of them pulls out a knife and kills the guy. No one talks. It's obvious that someone in the group killed him (let's say there was a camera or something that recorded things, but not well enough to pick out the killer). Do they all get a murder charge? I honestly don't know. It's evident they're all guilty of something, but only one of them is a murderer.
- NikkiA 17y agoMost places in the world, they would all be tried for murder. And the fact that noone talks about who did it, IS conspiracy. Edited to clarify that I meant to point out two issues rather than one.