Legal Hypothetical: Guilty of one of two crimes

[jack]

I wondered here, http://cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com/230434.html, what would happen if a court were sure beyond reasonable doubt you were guilty of one of two crimes, but had no convincing evidence which. Would they have to let you go, or could they sentence you to the lesser sentence[1]? I had a fairly dramatic example letting you get away with murder, but doing some research now I find at least one took the common sense approach.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=993601

An American case, but I guess valid precedent over there at least. A corner shop was found to have redeemed more food stamps[2] from the government than they had reported in revenue. Thus they had probably cheated their stamps, and possibly lied about their revenue, (or maybe both), and the defense tried to create doubt about which, even thought the discrepency was beyond doubt, and argue that neither was beyond doubt.

The court, fairly sensibly imho, decided she was liable to punsihment for the lesser crime if there was reasonable doubt on the greater. Though I don't know if based on anything other than fairness.

[1] There could still be a problem if the sentences were different in type, not just different periods of imprisonment, but fortunately all British sentences are fairly easily comparable, or have sufficient discretion to be made so. If not, I guess you could be offered a choice or something?

[2] Issued by the government to people who need them, redeemable at shops for food and other essential items. (Notorious for being confusing what is and isn't covered.) The government then pays the shop back.

Comments

[cornute.livejournal.com]

"Issued by the government to people who need them, redeemable at shops for food and other essential items. (Notorious for being confusing what is and isn't covered.)"

The only items you can purchase with food stamps are food-- and it cannot be food that is intended to be eaten right there. (The idea is that you aren't allowed to use it for a "restaurant meal" but rather that you should buy "groceries" with it.) The only place this will really confuse anyone is at restaurants that also sell food to take home. For instance, you cannot buy an ice cream cone with food stamps, but you can buy a box of ice cream bars. Most grocery stores don't sell ice cream by the scoop, but some restaurants do.

I don't think it's so confusing, myself, but then I've known a few folks on food stamps.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I apologise, I was describing what I remembered picking up from message boards, and it's apparently wrong. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything, but I thought I needed to say something in case anyone didn't know.

Thanks you.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

A lot of people will complain because you can't buy "anything you can find at the grocery store" with food stamps-- only food. So, if you have enough food for the month, have food stamps left over, and run out of diapers, you're out of luck-- unless you illegally trade food stamps for cash with someone.

Not to mention soap, feminine supplies, bleach, and all the other things you need to make really, really cheap housing livable with a small child...