Chasing convictions

[Lagmonster]

A man is arrested. After as thorough an investigation as modern science allows, the following comes to light:

1) There is overwhelming evidence that the man committed vandalism. The evidence is so convincing as to be unarguable; he is clearly on camera destroying the victim's property outside his home. A conviction carries a sharp fine.
2) There is moderate evidence that the man committed burglary. The evidence is not overwhelming, but neither should it be ignored. A conviction on this charge would be difficult, but plausible. Punishment would be jail time.
3) There is very slim evidence that the man committed murder. There is a greater suggestion that the victim's death might have been a coincidental accident, but there is enough evidence to place suspicion on the accused. A conviction, however, seems highly unlikely even before the harshest of judges. Punishment if convicted would be death.


Given this information, and nothing else, you are asked to decide what charges the state should pursue. Ignoring the realities of the actual legal system, and that your goal is to see that justice as you perceive it is done and that everyone is treated fairly, decide which of the three charges (or combination of the three) you would recommend the state pursue in court.

Alternatively, if it is impossible to make such a decision, do tell me why, and what's wrong with the scenario.

[lance]

I would go with the first, as it seems like second would easily get reasonable doubt from the jury, and the third defiantly would.

Plus the possibility of killing an innocent person doesn't sit well with me.

[Purple]

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works than #3. Or better yet, I would pursue them in order to make certain all 3 cases are covered. Any system that does not allow for such a proceeding is incredibly flawed in my opinion.

It's not about making sure he gets punished or making certain that the greatest crime is punished but about making sure that EVERY crime is ALWAYS punished. Anything below that line is a failure, even 2 out of 3.

[Skgoa]

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works than #3. Or better yet, I would pursue them in order to make certain all 3 cases are covered. Any system that does not allow for such a proceeding is incredibly flawed in my opinion.

But if the police did not find enough evidence that the suspect did actually commit a specific crime... in what universe is it just to charge him with it?

It's not about making sure he gets punished or making certain that the greatest crime is punished but about making sure that EVERY crime is ALWAYS punished. Anything below that line is a failure, even 2 out of 3.

In dubio pro reo, aka innocent untill proven guilty. Should the police investigate you for any crime you concievably could have committed?


As should be no surprise after that, I am going to go with 1+2. If there is evidence of a crime having been committed, a judge should decide wether or not the suspect is guilty.

[Batman]

The police can investigate all they want, the problem as I see it is Purple seems to adhere to the Lord Vetinari school of justice-every crime should be punished. If the punishment happens to the person that actually committed the crime that's a nice bonus, but it is by no means mandatory, just as long as somebody is punished for it.
For all its flaws, the US for want of a better term justice system has that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing for a reason.

[General Zod]

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works than #3. Or better yet, I would pursue them in order to make certain all 3 cases are covered. Any system that does not allow for such a proceeding is incredibly flawed in my opinion.

It's not about making sure he gets punished or making certain that the greatest crime is punished but about making sure that EVERY crime is ALWAYS punished. Anything below that line is a failure, even 2 out of 3.

Except number 3 might not even be a crime at all. Can you really say you'd be comfortable knowing that you might have sentenced an innocent man to death based on a hunch?

[Twoyboy]

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works than #3. Or better yet, I would pursue them in order to make certain all 3 cases are covered. Any system that does not allow for such a proceeding is incredibly flawed in my opinion.

It's not about making sure he gets punished or making certain that the greatest crime is punished but about making sure that EVERY crime is ALWAYS punished. Anything below that line is a failure, even 2 out of 3.

Except number 3 might not even be a crime at all. Can you really say you'd be comfortable knowing that you might have sentenced an innocent man to death based on a hunch?

Purple made an assumption here:

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works

If we believe that our justice system works, then you have to charge him with #3 since there is a suspicion. Otherwise you'll probably let a lot of people get away with murder.

[General Zod]

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works than #3. Or better yet, I would pursue them in order to make certain all 3 cases are covered. Any system that does not allow for such a proceeding is incredibly flawed in my opinion.

It's not about making sure he gets punished or making certain that the greatest crime is punished but about making sure that EVERY crime is ALWAYS punished. Anything below that line is a failure, even 2 out of 3.

Except number 3 might not even be a crime at all. Can you really say you'd be comfortable knowing that you might have sentenced an innocent man to death based on a hunch?

Purple made an assumption here:

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works

If we believe that our justice system works, then you have to charge him with #3 since there is a suspicion. Otherwise you'll probably let a lot of people get away with murder.

I'd much rather let a possible murderer go than risk executing someone who didn't do it. If the suspicion is strong enough but you can't pin him for the murder specifically, then you do to him what the Feds did to Capone. Nail him for other charges that will stick. The op also said "justice as we see it", which is going to vary from person to person.

[madd0ct0r]

pursue 1 +2.

If there is reasonable grounds to doubt the death to be an accident, the case should be left open.
If or when new, conclusive evidence comes to light, the case can be closed or prosecuted as appropriate.

If the murder was 20 years ago, now we might be able to make a conviction on DNA evidence. Logically, knowing that you may still be convicted for a crime in the future, based on evidence nobody knows exists yet, is a reasonable deterrent in the present.

[Lagmonster]

I'd much rather let a possible murderer go than risk executing someone who didn't do it. If the suspicion is strong enough but you can't pin him for the murder specifically, then you do to him what the Feds did to Capone. Nail him for other charges that will stick. The op also said "justice as we see it", which is going to vary from person to person.

A lot of different perspectives come to light whenever you see someone charged with murder and the evidence is slight. Which is why victims like to say that someone 'got away with murder' where the evidence is tainted or marginal. I wanted to be certain to say that a conviction on #3 was highly unlikely even before the harshest of judges so that people understood that the decision to pursue the charge was almost certainly a waste of time even though the charge was serious and carried a stiff penalty, so that hopefully people would have to think about the difference between what is fair and what is palatable.

Frankly, I see justice as pursuing all three charges, even though I know only #1 is guaranteed to stick, #2 is a 50/50 shot, and #3 is highly unlikely. The reason is that, even though I understand the punishment for #3 is stiff, I don't consider justice served if we fail to consider evidence just because we're afraid of an unfair or biased judgement. We should think of a fair court as one which considers evidence properly and a fair legal system as one which allows us to clearly declare a man innocent when the evidence does not demonstrate his guilt.

Of course, people don't think that way (and courts can be unfair); I've heard people say, "Well, there's some evidence...and he did those other bad things...so I will treat him as though he's guilty but got off on luck/a technicality/the limitations of science". Or they say, "I understand the lesser charges, but why charge him with murder? There's almost no evidence; It's like they're just throwing stuff at him to see what sticks/just so they have someone to blame!" In both cases I'm not sure whether people are talking about fairness or whether they're talking about what makes them feel good.

[Lagmonster]

If we ignore any particular justice system and just assume that we have one that actually works than #3. Or better yet, I would pursue them in order to make certain all 3 cases are covered. Any system that does not allow for such a proceeding is incredibly flawed in my opinion.

But if the police did not find enough evidence that the suspect did actually commit a specific crime... in what universe is it just to charge him with it?

Ah, but shouldn't all evidence should be considered if you want to be fair? You're only thinking of the prosecution - the defense will have the clearly-stated greater evidence that the death was a coincidental accident. Is justice as you see it also a consideration that people are biased by nature, or possibly corrupt, or that all it would take is incompetence on the part of the defense to condemn a man to a wrongful death?

[LaCroix]

1+2 is definitely in order.

And 3 will be raised - There is evidence that he was involved in a killing, even if accidental.
Either the evidence leads to a murder conviction, or the charge will be reduced to manslaughter, or accidental manslaughter or dismissed completely.

[General Zod]

I'd much rather let a possible murderer go than risk executing someone who didn't do it. If the suspicion is strong enough but you can't pin him for the murder specifically, then you do to him what the Feds did to Capone. Nail him for other charges that will stick. The op also said "justice as we see it", which is going to vary from person to person.

A lot of different perspectives come to light whenever you see someone charged with murder and the evidence is slight. Which is why victims like to say that someone 'got away with murder' where the evidence is tainted or marginal. I wanted to be certain to say that a conviction on #3 was highly unlikely even before the harshest of judges so that people understood that the decision to pursue the charge was almost certainly a waste of time even though the charge was serious and carried a stiff penalty, so that hopefully people would have to think about the difference between what is fair and what is palatable.

Frankly, I see justice as pursuing all three charges, even though I know only #1 is guaranteed to stick, #2 is a 50/50 shot, and #3 is highly unlikely. The reason is that, even though I understand the punishment for #3 is stiff, I don't consider justice served if we fail to consider evidence just because we're afraid of an unfair or biased judgement. We should think of a fair court as one which considers evidence properly and a fair legal system as one which allows us to clearly declare a man innocent when the evidence does not demonstrate his guilt.

Of course, people don't think that way (and courts can be unfair); I've heard people say, "Well, there's some evidence...and he did those other bad things...so I will treat him as though he's guilty but got off on luck/a technicality/the limitations of science". Or they say, "I understand the lesser charges, but why charge him with murder? There's almost no evidence; It's like they're just throwing stuff at him to see what sticks/just so they have someone to blame!" In both cases I'm not sure whether people are talking about fairness or whether they're talking about what makes them feel good.

On the other hand if you bring up the charge now and it gets dismissed, you generally can't ever bring it up again. If you forego the charge for now you can bring it up at a later date when investigative techniques improve or if more evidence comes to light.

[Simon_Jester]

Or they say, "I understand the lesser charges, but why charge him with murder? There's almost no evidence; It's like they're just throwing stuff at him to see what sticks/just so they have someone to blame!" In both cases I'm not sure whether people are talking about fairness or whether they're talking about what makes them feel good.

The problem is that if the evidence linking him to the murder is circumstantial or full of holes (say, too heavily reliant on eyewitnesses, who are surprisingly unreliable)... you don't have someone you can justly charge with the crime. You have, at most, a suspect. Probably one suspect out of many- surely this person had enemies or something.

If you start making accusations every time a shred of evidence pops up, you will miss a lot of real criminals in pursuit of fake ones, repeatedly risk the freedom and lives of innocent people, and waste the energy of the judiciary. It's hardly smart to try to convict the first suspect to every crime.

[LaCroix]

In this case the victim died while the accused committed vandalism and most likely a burglary. This isn't some wishy-washy - eyewitness case. You found a dead person in a vandalized and burgled home - of course the burglar/vandal is the prime suspect.

edit: deleted worthless assumption part

[LaCroix]

I would say stealing from a dead man is not a crime that does warrant jail time. Death penalty is far out of question. If those punishments (and possible different charges) are not debatable then I'd say go with the first charge only.

The problem is that our suspect might be involved in making that person a dead man... Either he killed him to be able to loot without disruption (murder), or in a fight when the man woke up and found him looting (manslaughter), or he might have acidentally pushed the man down a stair when caught (accidental manslaughter), or the man had a heart attack when finding out he was robbed.

The notion that the man coincidentally died just while his house was robbed is a bit far-fetched. As well as the assumption the suspect somehow knew the man had just dropped dead right now and immediately started looting. But then, WOW is rather popular...

[Edi]

I would say that the prosecution would have to go for the whole shebang. If the evidence is enough, then there will be conviction of the more serious charges and if not, then acquittal. In any case justice will have been served.

Regardless of which way it would end up, I don't see a problem, since the prosecutor is (or at least should be) obligated to take facts and evidence favorable to the defendant into account ex officio. Such as if the dead man in the house had tripped on the stairs and broken his neck and time of death does not match time of burglary (death happened e.g. hours earlier).

Therefore I must choose #3.

In the real world, if the evidence from the beginning seems so light as to be non-existent and there are other probable avenues of investigation, sometimes things get left out on cost analysis grounds, which in a situation such as the OP may allow for a potentially guilty person to walk away free.

[Stofsk]

One and two I have no problem with. Three suggests the evidence for a murder is slim, and that an even greater weight of evidence points to the alternative theory of it being a coincidental accident. That alone seals if for me. I don't see how the third option is remotely tenable or ethical. You can't convict based on suspicion alone. (that's not just me who thinks that, but a supreme court justice in my state)

The prosecutor would need to crack the case in such a way that the murder is the only possible theory for what occurred. If there is an alternative theory consistent with innocence, then well the law is pretty explicit in saying that the accused ought to be acquitted in those circumstances.

[LaCroix]

I think this 'don't charge him when it won't stick, because he could walk' is a flawed argument.

In a reasonable legal system, you are able to rerun a trial if new, pressing evidence is available. E.g. German law explicitly says that someone aquitted can be charged again when new evidence is found. And if there is a later confession/evidence was falsified/perjury (§ 362 StPO), even an already convicted can be brought to court again to correct the sentence.

[General Zod]

I think this 'don't charge him when it won't stick, because he could walk' is a flawed argument.

In a reasonable legal system, you are able to rerun a trial if new, pressing evidence is available. E.g. German law explicitly says that someone aquitted can be charged again when new evidence is found. And if there is a later confession/evidence was falsified/perjury (§ 362 StPO), even an already convicted can be brought to court again to correct the sentence.

Germany doesn't have the death penalty though. If the sentence involved is death then you really don't get the option of going back and fixing things when it's been carried out if new evidence clears them later on.

[Carinthium]

I'd follow whatever the law said on principle whatever my personal views. If I were an absolute monarch or effectively one in the limited context of the situation, I would go for all three charges but publically say that I was doing so so the court could assess them not because I thought they were all definitely true.

[Korto]

One and two.
Three shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole. Firstly, there is too much risk that any conviction reached would be a wrongful one. Secondly, the evidence available does not justify the cost to the accused; the stress, the months or more of his life lost defending himself, and the damage to his reputation.

And Hamstray, I'm one of those people who aren't rich, but are trying to leave something worthwhile to their kids, and you'll take my kids inheritance off my cold, dead... ummm... body?
Never mind.

[Lagmonster]

I split out the side-topic on Inheritance to a thread in N&P (since it's a political issue as much as anything). Link here.

[Lagmonster]

The problem is that if the evidence linking him to the murder is circumstantial or full of holes (say, too heavily reliant on eyewitnesses, who are surprisingly unreliable)... you don't have someone you can justly charge with the crime. You have, at most, a suspect. Probably one suspect out of many- surely this person had enemies or something.

If you start making accusations every time a shred of evidence pops up, you will miss a lot of real criminals in pursuit of fake ones, repeatedly risk the freedom and lives of innocent people, and waste the energy of the judiciary. It's hardly smart to try to convict the first suspect to every crime.

And I agree with you; the exact nature of the evidence (basic proximity versus, say, the guy holding a bloody knife) makes a huge difference in our decision. I'm pondering whether or not being purposely vague helped or not; saying "slight evidence says yes, strong evidence says no" raises the question of what constitutes evidence in this case. I suspect that nobody raised a similar concern with the lesser charges simply because 'strong enough to convict', while still indistinct, gives people the impression that it is irrelevant. Or perhaps, the punishment isn't harsh enough to make people want to examine the evidence closely. In a dialogue about justice, I'm curious about which mental jumps people are and aren't willing to make.

[General Zod]

The problem is that if the evidence linking him to the murder is circumstantial or full of holes (say, too heavily reliant on eyewitnesses, who are surprisingly unreliable)... you don't have someone you can justly charge with the crime. You have, at most, a suspect. Probably one suspect out of many- surely this person had enemies or something.

If you start making accusations every time a shred of evidence pops up, you will miss a lot of real criminals in pursuit of fake ones, repeatedly risk the freedom and lives of innocent people, and waste the energy of the judiciary. It's hardly smart to try to convict the first suspect to every crime.

And I agree with you; the exact nature of the evidence (basic proximity versus, say, the guy holding a bloody knife) makes a huge difference in our decision. I'm pondering whether or not being purposely vague helped or not; saying "slight evidence says yes, strong evidence says no" raises the question of what constitutes evidence in this case. I suspect that nobody raised a similar concern with the lesser charges simply because 'strong enough to convict', while still indistinct, gives people the impression that it is irrelevant. Or perhaps, the punishment isn't harsh enough to make people want to examine the evidence closely. In a dialogue about justice, I'm curious about which mental jumps people are and aren't willing to make.

When someone says the evidence is overwhelming I interpret that to mean that it's already been examined with a fine-tooth comb. Without stipulations on the nature of the evidence it's kind of hard to interpret it any other way.