-4

Suppose a witchcraft is proved to cause consequences, would it be legally punishable?

I was telling to everybody that I am a sectarian and a religious fanatic. For this reason I would most likely die of hunger (but then I would not ask this question) as nobody wanted to communicate with me. And at the same time I discovered a new math formula, accordingly to my opinion worth $trillion for mankind. I decided to destroy Moscow, the center of illegal anti-sectarian propaganda, by nuclear weapon, to keep myself alive and save my formulas. To do this I prayed and made wishes for a thermonuclear war.

Once I was beaten by two american missionaries. I was offended and said "Destroy two skyscrapers by planes!" This was my first big move to destabilize the world enough to start the thermonuclear war.

Later I decided to punish mankind for punishing me with nearly death (by hunger and by supporting the side of a woman that several times attempted to kill me) for holding and proclaiming the opinion that they polluted Old Testament with vowels (as it was originally written without vowels). I said many curses among which "Let it be coronavirus."

If (for the sake of the question) a court proved both that I said these curses and that the 11 Sep and corona were their consequences, what would be the legal consequences?

Would my position that application to God is an application to a higher court save me from a punishment?

I cursed them in Russia. Now I am in Israel.

3

Any legal question that begins with the word "suppose" becomes an academic exercise. Acceptance of religious principle can be incorporated in law, but it can also be reversed by later legislatures.

In the case of witchcraft, I would recommend reading the results of a search on "Matthew Hopkins", "Pendle" and "Salem".

In the US, Russia and Israel at time of writing, witchcraft is not considered to have a direct effect on criminal outcomes, though there may be aspects of the performance of religious activities and ceremonies that could be covered by incitement or conspiracy laws.

Taking the position that "application to God is application to a higher court" is unlikely to lead to acquittal unless considered indicative of insanity, but may mitigate sentencing as part of a diminished responsibility defence.

  • Not a good answer. I ask to answer under certain suppositions and yes that's an academic exercise. – porton Aug 31 '20 at 10:06
  • Considering the position that "application to God is application to a higher court" indicative of insanity would be clearly not accordingly Russian laws, as the state is claimed by the Constitution to be separate from religion (with implied separation from negation of religion). – porton Aug 31 '20 at 10:08
  • "Matthew Hopkins" is irrelevant as I am clearly asking about the modern law. – porton Aug 31 '20 at 10:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.