Hypothetical: Can I still murder?

[jaeger19]

When there has been a trial for a specific offense, where in the law does it specify a specific day or a specific fact pattern matters? The law states you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So technically if it is a murder of a specific person or grand theft of a specific item, is not there a gray area of double jeopardy involved?

No.. think about it..

I beat up bill.. I get hit with an assault charge, and I get convicted of it.

Does this mean that I can beat up bill again with impunity? Of course not.. because I was accused of assaulting bill on this date, etc etc.

If I assault bill AGAIN.. even though convicted once of assault.. I get ANOTHER assault charge.. because I am charged with assaulting him on a different date.. with different outcomes etc.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No.. think about it..

I beat up bill.. I get hit with an assault charge, and I get convicted of it.

Does this mean that I can beat up bill again with impunity? Of course not.. because I was accused of assaulting bill on this date, etc etc.

If I assault bill AGAIN.. even though convicted once of assault.. I get ANOTHER assault charge.. because I am charged with assaulting him on a different date.. with different outcomes etc.

But if you don't kill Bill but you are convicted of murder for killing Bill, you serve your time, you get out and meet up with Bill and then kill him. You have already been tried and convicted of killing Bill and have served your sentence. Interesting how that might actually be interpreted.

I honestly don't care. I am just curious how it would be handled.

 

[jaeger19]

But if you don't kill Bill but you are convicted of murder for killing Bill, you serve your time, you get out and meet up with Bill and then kill him. You have already been tried and convicted of killing Bill and have served your sentence. Interesting how that might actually be interpreted.

I honestly don't care. I am just curious how it would be handled.

Except the charge is different. Just like I was convicted of assaulting bill the first time.. and did my time.. DOES NOT MEAN.. I cannot get another assault charge for assaulting bill.

IF I get convicted of killing Bill.. and later ACTUALLY kill bill.. it will be a separate murder charge.. different day.. different circumstances etc.. (just like a different assault charge).

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Except the charge is different. Just like I was convicted of assaulting bill the first time.. and did my time.. DOES NOT MEAN.. I cannot get another assault charge for assaulting bill.

IF I get convicted of killing Bill.. and later ACTUALLY kill bill.. it will be a separate murder charge.. different day.. different circumstances etc.. (just like a different assault charge).

You can assault someone multiple times, committing multiple crimes of assault. But a person can only be murdered once

To be tried again the first conviction for murder would have to be nullified in my opinion (as no crime would have taken place)

 

[AlbqOwl]

Except the charge is different. Just like I was convicted of assaulting bill the first time.. and did my time.. DOES NOT MEAN.. I cannot get another assault charge for assaulting bill.

IF I get convicted of killing Bill.. and later ACTUALLY kill bill.. it will be a separate murder charge.. different day.. different circumstances etc.. (just like a different assault charge).

You're probably right. But I don't know that is true. You have already been tried, convicted, and served your time for killing Bill. So can a person be tried, convicted, and serve time again for killing the same person again? I would really like to hear from somebody who is a prosecutor or defense attorney in capital cases

 

[Mr Person]

You're probably right. But I don't know that is true. You have already been tried, convicted, and served your time for killing Bill. So can a person be tried, convicted, and serve time again for killing the same person again? I would really like to hear from somebody who is a prosecutor or defense attorney in capital cases

Harshaw and I DO know, and we've told you.



What the hell is "I don't know that is true" supposed to mean? What are you even trying to argue about. The effect of serving sentence on a charge that gets overturned on appeal was addressed here, where you posted:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/301405-question-parole.html




Your question about whether you can be tried in the circumstances you raised in this case have been answered.

Your question about sentencing when you have already served time on a conviction that gets overturned, retried, and results in conviction was answered there.




What's the confusion?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Harshaw and I DO know, and we've told you.



What the hell is "I don't know that is true" supposed to mean? What are you even trying to argue about. The effect of serving sentence on a charge that gets overturned on appeal was addressed here, where you posted:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/301405-question-parole.html




Your question about whether you can be tried in the circumstances you raised in this case have been answered.

Your question about sentencing when you have already served time on a conviction that gets overturned, retried, and results in conviction was answered there.




What's the confusion?

In case you didn't read carefully, we have moved on from overturned convictions.

 

[Mr Person]

In case you didn't read carefully, we have moved on from overturned convictions.

In case you didn't read carefully, I addressed the "moved on" portion in the post you responded to and in the other thread you participated in, which I linked to.

What could the confusion possibly be about?

You have already been tried, convicted, and served your time for killing Bill. So can a person be tried, convicted, and serve time again for killing the same person again?

This was literally answered.

If you have been convicted of an offense - and this is the definition that Harshaw and I gave you, not the one you pulled out of your ass - then you cannot be convicted of committing that offense again.

If you have been acquitted at trial, you cannot be tried again.

If you have been convicted but it is overturned, you can be. If you are retried and convicted on retrial, that was answered in the link I just gave you:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/301405-question-parole.html



So what the hell could you possibly be confused about?

He pointed out that if you are convicted for assaulting Bill on one date, serve your sentence, get out, and immediately go punch Bill in the face, you can get convicted for that too.

Because of ****ing course you could. How is that confusing?

 

[Mr Person]

But if you don't kill Bill but you are convicted of murder for killing Bill, you serve your time, you get out and meet up with Bill and then kill him. You have already been tried and convicted of killing Bill and have served your sentence. Interesting how that might actually be interpreted.

I honestly don't care. I am just curious how it would be handled.

JEEBUS!

If you served a life sentence for murdering bill but bill was alive, die, then come back to life and actually DO kill bill, then YES YOU CAN BLOODY BE CONVICTED OF ACTUALLY KILLING BILL.

That's a separate offense as has been painstakingly explained to you for six pages. But that will never happen because nobody comes back to life.




And if you served 40 years for killing bill, were released on parole, find out that bill was released, file a motion for trial, get your original conviction reversed, and then kill him for real, then YES YOU CAN BLOODY BE CONVICTED OF ACTUALLY KILLING BILL.

And if you're wondering about the sentence, that was already answered here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/301405-question-parole.html









What on Earth could the confusion possibly be about?

Are you going to come back and ask "yeah, but, what if all that happens except I don't get my wrong murder conviction thrown out" ???

If so, you're talking about hypotheticals that never have and never will happen, which are thus irrelevant. Nobody who is wrongly convicted of murder and has proof will just sit mum. If that's what you're trying to ask about, the hypothetical is even worse than I thought.

But even then, the prosecutor could quite likely move to dismiss the original charges, which you've already served your sentence on, and re-prosecute. Or the judge could simply order them dismissed sua sponte. And then, again, the other thread about sentencing after retrial comes into play.

What's the confusion?

 

[AlbqOwl]

In case you didn't read carefully, I addressed the "moved on" portion in the post you responded to and in the other thread you participated in, which I linked to.

What could the confusion possibly be about?





This was literally answered.

If you have been convicted of an offense - and this is the definition that Harshaw and I gave you, not the one you pulled out of your ass - then you cannot be convicted of committing that offense again.

If you have been acquitted at trial, you cannot be tried again.

If you have been convicted but it is overturned, you can be. If you are retried and convicted on retrial, that was answered in the link I just gave you:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/301405-question-parole.html



So what the hell could you possibly be confused about?

He pointed out that if you are convicted for assaulting Bill on one date, serve your sentence, get out, and immediately go punch Bill in the face, you can get convicted for that too.

Because of ****ing course you could. How is that confusing?

Assault can be done multiple times to the same person. Murder cannot.

 

[Mr Person]

Assault can be done multiple times to the same person. Murder cannot.

No ****, Sherlock.

I addressed all possible scenarios you could be asking about (See also post #59).








The idiotic questions you pretended to ask are answered ten times over. Now that it's clear you're just trolling, ciao!

 

[Mason66]

This is my uneducated legal opinion.

If it was not widely known that Bill was indeed alive, she could kill him for real this time and the prosecutor would think it was part of the original crime, considering they did not have a body the first time around.