Question inspired by Yakuza Judgement.
Carl, the huge rich criminal, is on trial for a murder he obviously committed. But during the trial, he looks at the 12 jurors and says
"if you let me go, I will donate 100 million dollars to the Red Cross. What's more important: me being in jail, or 100 million dollars to charity?"
Clearly, at least one of the jurors might resonate with this point, and refuse to say Carl is guilty. So what is supposed to happen in this case?
Btw, please don't focus on the "letter" of my question, but instead, focus on the "intent" of my question. Maybe Carl's money gets impounded, I don't know. The point is, Carl's arrest does more harm to the world than actually letting him be free.
P.S.: For those curious, in the actual game: Carl is on the brink of curing Alzheimer's, but commits a crime. But what if Carl brings up the fact that putting him in jail means millions of people suffer/die from Alzheimer's?
Edit: to be clear, no actual bribery is going on. Carl isn't saying "I'll give you $100 if you let me free". What's happening is Carl has so much good he can do for humanity (e.g. donate millions to charity, take care of children, cure important diseases, etc.), which he can't do if he were in jail. At which point, many jurors might consider that the world would be better off with Carl out of jail (so he could do good for the world) than in jail (solely so that Carl could suffer).