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 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.