The Perfect Crime

[3qX21hU5]

Just throw in some religious and philosophical crap and walk free.

You must not pay much attention to the supreme cout rulings lately ; p

[N36fSL3A]

People are idiots and they don't know how to use it correctly.

[Paoletti301]

"My body is killing me" ... . Though, makes me wonder...how hard would the court laugh if you gave the defense "Your Honor, I didn't consciously kill him. It was a muscle spasm, my body did it, so I'm not guilty!" Wonder what all odd excuses Judges have heard for why a person isn't guilty.

there are alot of conditions that will make a persons muscle spasm, there can be scenarios where that will indeed hold up in court, however, the majority of people have near perfect control over the bodies, so it would be very hard for most to prove that they did the crime unintentionally. just like your example of you getting out of a traffic accident by proving mechanical failure, its possible to do the same with your body.

as for your other statement, it depends on what you mean by "perfect" crime. if you define it as never getting caught, then there have already been many perfect crimes. if you define it as everything going perfectly, only the criminals who pulled them off would know.

i personally believe with enough planning a perfect crime is quite possible, but i generally requires alot more planning than most criminals would want to put in

[BHX]

Disch wrote:

For example...if you were to have a heart attack, which causes you to pass out while driving and smash into someone.. killing them... but you survive both the crash and the heart attack... you would not be guilty of any crime.

Hmm....good point. Also, I do want to add, I know why my point of view is that "killing yourself" doesn't equate to suicide to me. I've grown up with smokers and I've heard non-smokers tell them daily "You are killing yourself." My wife even says that to her dad, and she just lost her grandfather to lung cancer and he continued to smoke cigars and cigarettes even after his cancer diagnosis. Everyone else may equate "killing yourself" to a conscious effort while I equate a conscious effort to end your life to suicide and I think of killing yourself as having a little wiggle room to be not so narrow a meaning. Life experiences change your outlook on everything (for example, I know a few women that were pro-abortion, but once the got pregnant and had their kids became anti-abortion).

Disch wrote:

I stand by my racketeering scheme on page 2.
It really is perfect.

Nope, because the FBI and government wouldn't believe the "It wasn't my fault" argument. Plus once you get busted by them for that you forever stay on their radar and every investment or job you make/take will be under scrutiny. Also, companies that have a huge rate of houses being foreclosed and loans defaulting get investigated to make sure they aren't pulling anything (was all over the news about that just a few months back when they talked about people starting to buy homes again).

Zereo wrote:

You must not pay much attention to the supreme cout court rulings lately ; p

I gave up on our legal system after Casey Anthony got away with murdering her daughter just because everyone knew she did it, but couldn't prove she did it and got acquitted.

[3qX21hU5]

I gave up on our legal system after Casey Anthony got away with murdering her daughter just because everyone knew she did it, but couldn't prove she did it and got acquitted.

I personally didn't know she did it and you don't either. I mean I wasn't in the court room to hear the evidence. All I heard about the case is what the media wanted me to hear and to be honest they reported on it like she was guilty from the start.

So I don't know if she was guilty because I wasn't in the courtroom to hear all the facts laid out. Though the jury was and obviously had a reason for providing a not guilty verdict (Do you really think they would vote not guilty if they truly thought she was guilty of murdering her child? I don't think so.) so that is good enough for me.

[Disch]

BHXSpecter wrote:

Nope, because the FBI and government wouldn't believe the "It wasn't my fault" argument. Plus once you get busted by them for that you forever stay on their radar and every investment or job you make/take will be under scrutiny.

You do realize that what I described actually happened, right? ;P And that all of the banks responsible (at least all the major ones) are still alive and healthy. None of the individuals involved have been jailed. And the only penalties of any kind that have been dished out were laughably small fines.

This after they effectively stole $7 Billion of bailout money + however many other billions they swindled by manipulating the market.

Also, companies that have a huge rate of houses being foreclosed and loans defaulting get investigated to make sure they aren't pulling anything (was all over the news about that just a few months back when they talked about people starting to buy homes again).

I didn't see that on the news. I probably missed it. What I did see was the federal prosecutor bragging about how they settled for half a million in fines against one of the larger banks. (Half a million was literally only 2 weeks profit for the bank in question -- though I can't remember which one it was)


That said... "investigating" and "being under scrutiny" is one thing. But having hard consequences for your actions is another. Until there's an example of any major bank or bank executive suffering any sort of significant penalty for the shit they pulled, I am convinced they all got away with murder.


I'll try to find a link to the story I'm thinking of when I get home from work. Can you provide a link to the story you're referring to? The stuff that was all over the news?

[BHX]

@Zereo
Ever done jury duty? You are told to not let your feelings or thoughts interfere with your decision. You are to be objective and ultimately decide your verdict upon whether the prosecution proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the defendant is guilty.

Didn't have to be in the court room, after the verdict most of the jurors talked and all of them said they knew she killed her, but had to vote not guilty because the prosecutor failed to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt she did it. The bullet points speaks volumes to me:

*During the time her daughter was missing she was seen on Walmart video buying beer.
*During the time her daughter was missing she was posting pics on facebook of her partying
*Druing the time her daughter was missing she got a tattoo in another language which translates to "Living the life"
*Claimed some hispanic woman who she never met kidnapped her
*A computer had searches for making chloroform which later was proven to be on the tape that had covered her daughter's mouth and nose.

Casey's mom says she is innocent, but her father who is retired sheriff says he feels she killed her.

I have an 8 year old son, if he went missing I would go to hell and back to find him. Not go partying or buy beer.

[twiggystardust]

BHX: yes they tell you to, but that doesn't mean it happens or not, I'm pretty sure most people don't have the willpower to keep their feelings getting in the way. I think that a lot of people let their feelings run most aspects of their lives, jury duty included, they may not see it as their feelings getting in the way, but I'm sure it still happens a lot

[Disch]

IMO your feelings should get in the way.

If we wanted emotionless decision making, we should write a computer program to do it and eliminate the need for juries.

But that's dumb. Because the law needs human interaction for it to be effective. Human interaction means imperfect and judged on a case-by-case basis.

There are (and should be) times where someone technically did break the law, and legally they should be punished, but realistically the reasons behind why the law was broken outweighted that fact and the jury found them not guilty.

Whether or not the reverse of that (people being found guilty even though it wasn't necessarily outright proven by the law) should happen is debatable. Ideally I think it should be... but in practice it's better that it's not. Better to let 100 killers go free than to lock up an innocent person, as the saying goes.



But yeah. The "letter" and the "spirit" of the law are two different things. Blindly following the letter of the law without taking into consideration the point of such a law and/or whether or not that point applies to this particular case is a bad move.

Realistically, people are too stupid and/or hotheaded, and the idea of having someone's life in their hands is pretty nuts when you think about it. I think that's why so much emphasis is put on the burden of proof for the prosecutor.


Blah blah blah blah.

TL;DR. People aren't robots. You should use your brain when rendering a verdict and should not just obey the strict letter of the law.

[BHX]

Disch wrote:

People aren't robots. You should use your brain when rendering a verdict and should not just obey the strict letter of the law.

Yes, but there is actually a loop hole that exists where if they can prove you came to guilty due to letting your emotions instead of facts they can appeal and have the case thrown out as a mistrial. Same way if you start saying they are guilty before all the evidence is there the judge can have you dismissed from the trial because it is considered not being objective.

@Disch
Also, they bailout money disappeared, but the government to this day, last I read, was still harassing the banks and institutions to make them pay it back. As for the fore-closure, appears a few companies were closed, but most were just forced to act like it hadn't foreclosed (which caused a problem for one family). One family was foreclosed on, then had it reversed but it was after the house was bought by a second family. The second family, last I heard, refused to leave so they are still living there even though the first family owns it again. That was all over the news for a week or two discussing what legal options the first one had to force the second one to leave. Not had any luck finding links yet, but I remember it was CNN so I'm sifting through their links.