Craven wrote:The financial contributions had no such criteria of murder, so you have no distinguishing criteria to cherry pick them from the others except for coincidental benefit (which would not be a basis to charge conspiracy).
A good argument from the defense counsel.
Craven wrote:Sounds like the general principles are more inclusive and flexible than actual laws since they get to elude the first principle of law (codification).
What is this "first principle of law (codification)" of which you speak? What is its application to International Law?
Craven wrote:This legal system is more complicated than I had thought. Do these courts, prosecutors and "triers" have names? Wink
How about the "People's World Court"? I'll be the prosecutor ... you be the defense counsel. We'll select our jury from the A2K members. We would need a judge to instruct the jury on what the law is, so I'm not sure who that would be. Perhaps we could recruit Judge Wapner, or Judge Judy?
Craven wrote:Tico wrote:Now I'm not saying I would win the case, all I'm saying is I can make an argument, and what my argument would be.
Ok, but this is pointless as any argument can be made, what is important is what happens to it after that point.
I know you can float one out there, what remains to be seen is if there is any validity to your argument.
I've already agreed that guilt is certainly possible in an imaginary setting and I'll also get on the record here to agree that you possess the ability to allege a crime whether or not it actually is a crime.
Well my main point was to articulate the basis for alleging a crime. Sounds like I succeeded. Pointless or not. It was not my intention to convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Craven wrote:I have no desire for law to resemble mathematics. I merely expect it to be codified so that it's not a moving target. The imaginary scenarios do not resemble law as they are not subject to any such codified law and deal with more flexible "principles".
When I realized that you were speaking of vague principles I realized that I was in a Kangaroo Court complete with the whole ensemble of characters.
lol. The law is full of vagueness, even codified law. It's all a matter of degree. That's one reason lawyers get to "argue."
Craven wrote:Tico wrote:Craven wrote:Unlawful under precisely what law?
Common law.
If I wanted to check whether you are correct what document would I seek?
Is this is an ipse dixit law?
Well, I suppose you could do a google search for common law conspiracy. It's not
ipse dixit, but it's also not
codified per se. Blackstone wrote about the English Common Law in his 4 volume treatise in the 18th century. In law school, our Criminal Law courses are taught based on common law principles. The "common law" is a set of laws that are really only applicable to British colonized countries, and stem from English common law principles. Codified statutes which reflect this common law are interpreted in light of the common law traditions, and consequently may not state every principle because they are interpreted based on existing case law, customs, and traditions. Codification is a relatively recent development in the law, and in most cases merely restates common law principles which have existed since at least the time of Blackstone -- your heartburn with the same notwithstanding. My references to common law are to principles which have existed in English Common Law for centuries, and are not references to newer purely statutory crimes. There is a historical basis to common law crimes, and centuries of case law to review for precedent. Not everything in the law is codified, even today.
Craven wrote:You argue that the payouts constitute motivation for murder, but murder was not necessary to acheive the payout.
If this was at the discretion of the murderer your case for conspiracy itself is not substantiated.
I disagree. A conspiracy can be solely at the discretion of the murderer, and the key is in the acceptance of the offer. Here's why: It is essential for there to be a conspiracy for there to be an agreement. The key to the agreement, as I've already said, is the "offer." If the "offer" of Saddam can be construed to offer to pay a large sum of money to the relatives of suicide bombers if they kill themselves while blowing up Israelis, the agreement is formed when the suicide bomber accepts that offer - by blowing up an Israeli. Conspiracy only requires an agreement, not a completion of the agreement. However, in this case the acceptance of the offer is likely only conveyed through their performance. Only upon performance is there an acceptance ... thus without blowing themselves up, there would be no agreement, unless there is some other form of acceptance, of which I'm not aware and am not arguing.
This is akin to the following scenario: Let's suppose I were to offer to pay you $10,000 to kill my wife, and you said you'd think about it. You have not formed an agreement with me yet, because you have not accepted my offer. (Note: if you had said, "okay, I'll do it," that would be a sufficient acceptance, and you could be charged with conspiracy.) If you never kill my wife, you never accept my offer, and there is not agreement, and thus no conspiracy. If you kill my wife the next day, you have accepted my offer through your performance, and there is an agreement, and thus sufficient facts to substantiate the charge of conspiracy.
Thus, you see it is erroneous to state that a conspiracy cannot be solely at the discretion of the murderer.
)
)
)
