73

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes ...


72

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who view ...


34

To add a perspective from a different legal system: In Germany, this would fall under the notion of Eventualvorsatz (loosely translated, "recklessness"). Basically, whenever the criminal code requires intent ("Vorsatz" in German), a total lack of consideration for the consequences of an action can be counted as being equivalent to intent. ...


19

You may get more effective murderers that way I would frame the question from the perspective from the criminal. If they know they will be punished equally from attempted murder from actual murder, they will try harder to get the results they want. More if is this common knowledge. By rewarding incompetence, you may end with a incompetent murder instead of a ...


14

This could fall under the Felony Murder Rule which is a specific type of "transfer of intent" where if someone dies while you are committing (or even aiding in!) a felony you can be guilty of first-degree murder. Some restrictions apply, which depend on jurisdiction, but generally "terrorism" is going to get you every time in the US, and ...


11

Yes, you are responsible for the knock-on effects of your criminal actions, but there’s a line. For instance suppose you aimed to commit tax fraud by understating your company’s profits in the accounting system. Your limited partner sees those fake numbers, believes they are real, believes this means essential cancer treatments are unaffordable, and commits ...


9

Chauvin is being charged under Minn. Stat. § 289A.63, which makes filing a false return a felony. Criminal sentencing in Minnesota is generally done using a standard set of sentencing guidelines, which sort of set a presumptive sentence based on the severity of the offense and the defendant's criminal history. Filing a false return is currently classified at ...


7

Murder is defined as the unlawful intentional killing of a person, and not the intentional performance of an act which results in an unlawful death. Therefore, if you intend to kill 200,000 people but kill only 1 person, that is 1 count of murder, and if you intend to kill 1 person but do kill 200,000, that is 200,000 counts of murder. You don't even need to ...


6

There wouldn't be any formal process - you would just start practicing criminal law, but obviously you would be reading up on criminal law prior to doing so since you would hold relevant professional obligations under the Bar Standards Board Handbook to, well, actually know the law you're practicing—namely Core Duty 7: You must provide a competent standard ...


6

Does the law or judge ever make exceptions for events such as this? From a legal standpoint, your friend is at high risk of being found in contempt and thus be sentenced to imprisonment. Your friend should have called 911 rather than violate the protection order under pretext of consoling her. Asking from the standpoint of whether judges ever do this or ...


5

This depends on how you define drug. One possible and often attested origin of the word drug is middle low german droge waere "dried wares", which targets dried herbs and spices. Making such dried herbs is generally legal (except when the plant it is made from is illegal in the first place, see making controlled substances below). The more modern ...


5

The legal theories regarding homicides have changed a lot, but there has not always been some kind of distinction between the attempt and the result. It's the distinction between an assault with a deadly instrument and the resulting killing. And not all jurisdictions look at things the same way! The aspect of killings under the aspect of Law in History is a ...


4

In California, you may use reasonable force to protect property from imminent harm. The jury instruction on that point is here. The instruction regarding justifiable homicide and defense of property is more restricted, because it only applies to protection of property when the deceased enters a home. If a stranger attacks your dog on a walk, you can use ...


3

Not necessarily. Let's say the victim delivered photos of a harm that were alleged to be done by the defendant. That's a crime in itself. But based on this item the DA orders investigation and finds evidence of a real crime. Discovering that the photo was faked can lead to dismissal (with prejudice), but even without the fake photo, there might be a strong ...


3

Contempt of court is still a remedy, because fines can be issued. The mayor or chief of police can still be arrested and held (enforcement would be via the county court bailiff or sheriff, for example), and the city can be fined. It is possible but not normal to arrest government personnel for disobeying a court order.


3

To add to the existing arguments, consider this from the point of view of crime deterrence, i.e., you view the sentence as a means to deter people from murdering others. Specifically, suppose that Alice attempted to murder Bob but failed. If Bob has noticed, Alice is confronted with the risk that he secures evidence, alerts the authorities, and eventually ...


3

Why is ... Not sure about US/UK laws, but based on German laws, this question is a highly opinion-based question so my answer will be opinion-based. I also have to say that I'm not a lawyer, so my answer is not an expert's answer. Why is murder considered a more serious crime than attempted murder? Background German law (§23 StGB) states that ... ... an ...


3

You don't state a jurisdiction, but the following will apply in most common-law jurisdictions. If you entered with permission, picked up the bird and walked out with it without any objections then a charge of theft would not stick; you were simply reclaiming your own property with the permission of the householder. However from your post that doesn't sound ...


3

In the UK, generally there is no duty to report crime. There are circumstances where there is a duty to report suspicious activity or 'knowledge' or 'suspicion' of a crime. These include: financing of terrorism money laundering or dealing in other proceeds of crime (criminal property) or fraud in a regulated sector (e.g. solicitors, accountants, insolvency ...


2

As noted in other answers, if you intend to murder the expected occupants of the arena, then you have murdered the others. However there are interesting exceptions... For one exception, if the intended 60,000 victims in the arena had been legally sentenced to death, and the bomb is the chosen method of execution, then you have not murdered them. Execution is ...


2

It depends on the motives of the sender, among other things. Section 1(1) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 states: (1) Any person who sends to another person— ... (b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in ...


2

You need proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court will get expert witnesses to figure out who strong the evidence is. First, someone will tell the court that if your home IP address has been used, how strong evidence it is that your computer or phone was used. And then if your computer or phone was used for a crime, it depends on the situation how much ...


2

It depends. If the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that noone else could use that IP address at that particular time then yes. But can it prove so? Maybe yes. Maybe not. Depends on the results of forensic examination of the device, network traffic, any other corroborating evidence etc.


2

No ... but you probably have to pay damages. Unless there is a clause in your contract that relieves you of your obligation to return the router and you are required to do so by a given date, then if you don’t do that, you are in breach and your ISP can claim damages until you do. They would have to demonstrate the actual damage the suffered by not having ...


2

Unless there is a force majeure clause in your contract that excuses you from returning the router in extraordinary circumstances, you are legally required to return the router, or in general, perform your obligations in the contract. Governments can issue emergency orders suspending certain obligations, which might delay an eviction, but if the government (...


2

Typically, this kind of action would not be handled as a criminal offense. There are other contexts that are more likely to come up. The civil and criminal cases aren't the same. In a criminal case, the prosecution has a duty to provide evidence that it has to the defense upon request, but the defense has no parallel obligation due to protections against ...


2

How did the author deduce his ways 2 and 4? The adverb "maliciously" in Section 18 qualifies both of the offender's possible purposes: to do GBH to any person, or to resist or prevent his lawful detainment. The author did not include "malicious" in alternatives 1 and 3 presumably because the notion of GBH itself has a connotation of ...


1

How does "the lesser fault standard" incorporate the greater? If a little bit of fault makes you guilty, then surely a lot of fault does. How can "where negligence is enough for criminal liability, then, a fortiori, there is liability for intention or recklessness"? You can be negligent without being reckless or intent. Exactly. So if ...


1

If the law says that a negligent person is guilty, then one who is negligent or reckless or intentional is guilty. The fault standard for guilt can be negligence, recklessness or intentionality. Recklessness includes intentional acts. Negligence includes reckless and intentional acts. That's how "the lesser fault standard incorporates the greater." ...


1

Virginia state law imposes restrictions on possession and transportation of firearms and ammunition, §18.2-308.2. That law restricts those who have been convicted of a felony, as well as those committing certain juvenile offenses. Separate laws, 18.2-308.1:1 et seq, address purchase, possession, or transportation of firearms by persons in various "...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible