Legal hypothetical: Guilty of one of two crimes

[jack]

Note: I'm merely curious. I have no intention of doing this.

Suppose it's certain that I'm guilty of one of two crimes, but it's uncertain *which*. And there's no overlap. Is there any legal mechanism which will convict me of one-or-the-other? Can I be tried and sentenced to the lesser sentence? What happens?

The best example I can think of is I shoot someone with a hypodermic gun, then send the body abroad in my friend's boat. I'm found with two ampouls, A fatal, B not. If I used A, I'm guilty of murder (and tampering with a corpse, etc). If I used B, I'm guilty of kidnapping (and assault). Can I be convicted of either of the major crimes, given that it's not certain I committed it?

I think in most jurisdictions I can be convicted for assault if I also murder, but if I'm tried for murder that takes precedence. So I might get any lesser charge which certainly happened.

Am I obliged to testify? I thought the current situation in the UK was that it could be held against me if I don't testify, but that it's not automatic guilt, it's just that if it makes me look guilty it can be evidence against me, but here it's not conclusive.

Comments

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I don't think I understand your hypothetical example - can't they just find whoever was shot and see if they're still alive?

How about two identical twins who are clearly seen committing two different crimes at the same time, with no evidence as to which of them did what?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

can't they just find whoever was shot and see if they're still alive?

They're taken abroad to a country with no extradition treaty and have their throat cut there. You can't tell if they were killed here, and necrodefiled there, or kidnapped here and killed there.

How about two identical twins who are clearly seen committing two different crimes at the same time, with no evidence as to which of them did what?

Ooh yes, that's a good one. I was struggling to come up with something similar, but completely forgot the 'identical twin' staple :)

Unfortunately, there's a problem with most two-person solutions, if you plan it together I think you're both guilty of conspiracy, which I think can be about as serious as the original crime, for exactly[1] this sort of situation.

[1] OK, not *exactly*. But to make someone who arranges a murder culpable.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I think it's fairly easy to tell if someone's throat has been cut before or after they died. And I think assaulting and kidnapping someone and sending them to dangerous countries where they get their throat cut is arguably murder too!

The twins didn't plan the crimes together, or even know the other was planning to commit one: they're just keeping quiet about who did what because they hold it to be mutually beneficial.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think it's fairly easy to tell if someone's throat has been cut before or after they died.

But all the post mortem evidence is buried in a hole in a different country you have no legal access to.

And I think assaulting and kidnapping someone and sending them to dangerous countries where they get their throat cut is arguably murder too!

Morally, yes. Is that legally true, do you know? If X is a crime in countries A and B, and I X in B, but there's no extradition, and country B doesn't want to know, can A arrest me if I'm there? I need to look this up.

The twins didn't plan the crimes together, or even know the other was planning to commit one: they're just keeping quiet about who did what because they hold it to be mutually beneficial.

Ah! Then that would work. It just doesn't let you plan the perfect crime in advance.

[senji.livejournal.com]

Conspiracy-after-the-fact? :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

For the twins? Hmm, maybe. Though if you testified at all you would be incriminating yourself, aren't you allowed to not do that?

I don't know enough about the law, do you know?

[edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com]

I believe so, European Rights Act has a section on that. And no, you can't use it to get off a driving ticket.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

But all the post mortem evidence is buried in a hole in a different country you have no legal access to.

Then how do you know their throat has been cut at all!?


If X is a crime in countries A and B, and I X in B, but there's no extradition, and country B doesn't want to know, can A arrest me if I'm there?

I don't think I realised the alleged murderer went to the foreign country with the victim. Why did you say 'sent', and why is it a friend's boat? I don't see why the difficulties of arresting people who have fled to countries with no extradition treaties is relevant to the original interesting dilemma. Or am I just horribly confused?

I can think of some other examples now.

- Someone who either illegally supplies a friend with drugs to kill herself, or administers the drugs directly (either with or without the friend's consent)

- Someone who kills a baby either just before or just after its head has emerged from the birth canal.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I was sort of making up the example as I went along. The idea is two different crimes with the same apparent result.

The point of going abroad at all is that I want to kill my enemy eventually, if only just to stop him turning up and testifying to my kidnapping. But killing him abroad was intended not to be a crime here. A boat seemed the easiest way, and I invented a friend so you could stay in the country, but if you took the body/corpse abroad and then came back it'd be the same.

The details of what you do abroad don't really matter, but I was assuming it'd hard to get any evidence, but that you prove/admit enough for it to be clear you did one or the other.

[saraphale.livejournal.com]

Then how do you know their throat has been cut at all!?

I think this is delving into the specifics, where the example wasn't meant to be complete.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I didn't understand the example at all, so couldn't see whether or how it fitted in with the main point. Asking about specifics was my attempt to get any kind of handle on it at all, so I could picture the situation.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Here in the States, there was a case in California where one identical twin committed a robbery. They were unable to convict him because no one could say "yes that was definitely James and not John." (Also, here you can't be required to testify against yourself.)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. That's interesting -- you don't even need any complicated planning, you just need to be a twin.

Can't the other twin be compelled to testify that it wasn't him, somehow? Immunity?

[edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com]

At which point the immune twin just says, "Yup, it was me. And you can't try me for it. Suckers!"

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Oh, sorry, it sounded like they knew which one was which, just couldn't prove it.

I'm vague on the details of immunity. Rather, can't they just trial A, and summon B to testify that he wasn't at the scene. But I was thinking of immunity to *other* charges, in case B was committing a crime elsewhere, or conspiring with A to conceal the crime, or so on.

Maybe a "not guilty" plea would be enough? :)

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Well, he did testify that it wasn't him. He didn't have an alibi, as I recall, though-- so, that really wasn't enough to prove that he couldn't also have done it.

If I am wearing a full-body Bugs Bunny costume and at a convention with 3 other Bugs Bunny costume wearers, it's not enough to convict me of something to say that someone did it while wearing the costume (provable, say by videotape) and the other three say they didn't do it but have no way to prove they didn't.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. I was thinking the other one wouldn't have been convicted anyway, so his word would be as good as that of anyone who saw him. Though I suppose whatever we're in "reasonable doubt" territory here :)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

They try you for kidnapping. Since it's certain you did one or the other you can either admit to it, admit to murder as a defence and promptly get done for that, or hold out for the trial and the jury convict you on that. "I might have murdered him instead" seems unlikely to be convincing...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Why is it unconvincing? I've admitted I might do that, and regardless of what I did do, I have a very good reason to admit I *might* do that. I might even produce evidence that I intended to choose randomly. Any Baysian can you the chance of my guilt :)

[saraphale.livejournal.com]

Or possibly attempted murder. Without the body, they must have proof of motive, and the proof of means to conduct either course of action.

[rjw76]

I've met a similar one in the case of inseparable Siamese twins, one of whom committed a serious crime. Thankfully, I don't think it's ever happened.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I was just about to mention Chained For Life, one of my favourite bad films, which is about that.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

What happened in the end?

[cornute.livejournal.com]

They moved from the States to London, so the other one could drive for a while?

I've been waiting to use that line for a long time.