A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
But Bob, unaware of Alan's plan, has another idea. After Alan leaves Clyde's tent, Bob sneaks in, empties the poisoned water out of Clyde's canteen, and replaces it with sand. They then get away before Clyde comes to fetch his "water."
Inevitably, Clyde dies of dehydration.
Who is guilty of murder? Who is guilty of attempted murder?
Quote:
Kristoph: It would, of course, be absurd to declare my client, Mr. Alan, the murderer. How can he be accused of poisoning the victim... if the victim was never poisoned?
Judge: Agreed! NOT GUILTY!
One day later...
Kristoph: It would, of course, be absurd to declare my client, Mr. Bob, the murderer.
Judge: But - but you said that about Alan!
Kristoph: True, Your Honor. But I've already received Alan's check. Now, consider this:
First, as soon as Alan acted, Clyde was doomed. His only water source was poisoned, and nothing my client did was going to change that.
Second, death by poison would have been fast, whereas slow death by dehydration gave Mr. Clyde a chance to find help. Can you declare someone a murderer for taking poison away from someone?
Judge: ... I can't believe this. NOT GUILTY!
Kristoph: I do love it when I get paid twice.
Judge: Agreed! NOT GUILTY!
One day later...
Kristoph: It would, of course, be absurd to declare my client, Mr. Bob, the murderer.
Judge: But - but you said that about Alan!
Kristoph: True, Your Honor. But I've already received Alan's check. Now, consider this:
First, as soon as Alan acted, Clyde was doomed. His only water source was poisoned, and nothing my client did was going to change that.
Second, death by poison would have been fast, whereas slow death by dehydration gave Mr. Clyde a chance to find help. Can you declare someone a murderer for taking poison away from someone?
Judge: ... I can't believe this. NOT GUILTY!
Kristoph: I do love it when I get paid twice.
Your thoughts?
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
ALL GLORY TO... SOMETHING
Gender: Male
Location: Not in a courtroom, that's where.
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 914
I say Bob should go to jail for murder, as his plot was to dehydrate Clyde, and that's what happened, causing his death.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
I am lying.
Gender: Female
Location: Floating in a sea of pink lipgloss. YUM!<3
Rank: Desk Jockey
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:59 pm
Posts: 58
What a strange problem anyway
{ Waiting for divine inspiration. }
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Walking the path of heaven, ruler of all
Gender: Male
Location: sweden
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 1163
Awesome sig made by Nadindi.
My otp's are. MayaxLarry and PhoenixxFranziska
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
ALL GLORY TO... SOMETHING
Gender: Male
Location: Not in a courtroom, that's where.
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 914
Alan plotted to kill Clyde, acted on this plot, and Clyde did indeed die. By this logic, Alan is indeed the guilty party. Further, how can one prove in court that Bob's intention was to kill? Informing Clyde of the state of his water isn't a certain way to save him from the poison; one does get desperate when they are dehydrated. Sharing his own water might not have been an option either as they may have only had just enough to survive. Overall, my point is this:
Replacing the poison with sand was the best way to save him!
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Walking the path of heaven, ruler of all
Gender: Male
Location: sweden
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 1163
Awesome sig made by Nadindi.
My otp's are. MayaxLarry and PhoenixxFranziska
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
Quote:
I say Bob should go to jail for murder, as his plot was to dehydrate Clyde, and that's what happened, causing his death.
Objection! Bob did not "cause" the victim's death. Assume that Bob intended to be responsible for the victim's dehydration. What then? If I plot to shoot someone, and they 'get shot,' that does not imply that I am the killer.What do you suppose would have happened if during his journey, Clyde had realized that his canteen had been poisoned? He would have discarded the water himself. Ultimately, Alan was responsible. (I have reversed my earlier arguments, naturally, with this realization. I hope Your Honor is not too offended.)
Ladies and Gentlemen of the court... can a man be found Guilty for doing something that the victim would have done in any case to save his own life? I think not!
Quote:
Alan just tried to poison Clyde but didn't succeed.
OBJECTION! Let us suppose Clyde had thrown away the poisoned water in disgust, and died of dehydration instead. Would that have been a 'success' for Alan? I certainly think so!
If you try to shoot me, and I flee and am hit by a car, you are still guilty of murder. Likewise, even though Alan's poison never took effect, it was he who effectively destroyed the water supply.
Quote:
I would say that Bob is the one guilty of murder.
OBJECTION! On what grounds? On the grounds that Bob meant for Clyde to die, and Clyde did? One could apply that logic just as easily to Alan.
Quote:
Further, how can one prove in court that Bob's intention was to kill? Informing Clyde of the state of his water isn't a certain way to save him from the poison; one does get desperate when they are dehydrated. Sharing his own water might not have been an option either as they may have only had just enough to survive. Overall, my point is this:
Replacing the poison with sand was the best way to save him!
Replacing the poison with sand was the best way to save him!
Bravo! But even if my client's intention had been to kill, he would, at most, be guilty of attempted murder. That said, you have convinced me to pursue a complete acquittal. Thank you for your support.Quote:
But how would anyone else than Alan know that the water was poisioned. In the text it seemed like Alan putted poision in the water without telling Bob. And if Bob knew the water was poisoned why would he exchange it.
Yes, Bob's lack of knowledge does hurt the claim that he deliberately acted to extend Clyde's life. Very well! He accidentally extended Clyde's life. How is that murder?
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
They don't :c
Gender: Male
Location: http://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/southamerica/political-map-of-Argentina.gif
Rank: Moderators
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 3188
Mr. Clyde's death was caused by dehydratation. Caused by sand. Put there by Mr. Bob. Whatever where his intentions, Mr. Clyde died by the sand put there by Mr. Bob. Therefore, the sand is the murder weapon. So, premeditated or not, Mr. Bob's guilty of murder. Since apparently Mr. Bob confessed to putting the sand there, and Mr. Clyde died due to the sand, then he murdered him.
It is true, Mr. Gavin, that Mr. Bob did save the victim's life by discarding the poisoned water... However!
He was unaware of Mr. Alan's plan to murder Mr. Clyde! THEREFORE! He just discarded the water in order to place his sand... not to save Mr. Clyde's life! He's clearly guilty of premeditated murder! The facts are the facts. Mr. Clyde died thanks to the sand, which Bob set up. Clear as not-poisoned water, Your Honor.
And Mr. Alan is guilty of trying to murder the victim, since his intentions and actions were towards killing him. If traces of poison are found in the glass of "water", then he should be declared guilty of attempted murder. If not, I'm afraid it can't be proved, unless Mr. Alan confesses.
The prosecution rests.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Real men are gray-haired in their 20s.
Gender: None specified
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:03 am
Posts: 566
At the heart of the matter is the fact that Alan is the one who is FIRST responsible for making the victim's water undrinkable by poisoning it. At that moment, assuming no other source of water is forthcoming for the victim, it is a given that the victim will die, no matter what else happens. Therefore, Bob's actions (dumping out the water and replacing it with sand) are essentially meaningless. Therefore, incredible as it may seem, Alan is indeed guilty of murder.
However, that does not get Bob completely off the hook. He may not have been ultimately responsible for the victim's death, but that does not change the fact that he acted with murderous intent. The defense's claims that the victim would have emptied his own canteen had he known the water was poisoned and that Bob was somehow, in a way, possibly saving the victim by replacing the tainted water are both suppositional and patently false, respectively.
To elaborate, the victim did NOT, in point of fact, know his water was poisoned, so any train of thought in that regard is pointless. Furthermore, Bob was in no way "saving" the victim by emptying his canteen. As was previously mentioned, the victim was presumably already doomed to die regardless of whatever events may have transpired after Alan poisoned the victim's water.
One final note: though I agree with Mr. FerdieLance's broad assertion that Alan is ultimately responsible for the victim's death, his analogy with the attempted shooting followed by a car accident is faulty. A man can shoot and miss, but that does not necessarily mean that his intended victim's subsequent death by automobile is inevitable (as it presumably is in our desert scenario). (I will concede, though, that the probability of it is significant, perhaps enough so to signify causation.)
In summary, it was Alan's actions that were the ultimate cause of the victim's death by dehydration. However, Bob still acted toward the victim with intent to kill, therefore, he is guilty of attempted murder.
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Real men are gray-haired in their 20s.
Gender: None specified
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:03 am
Posts: 566
DoMaya wrote:
Well it's obvious the only one to blame is Clyde.
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Ha haaaa, I love it!
"The court finds the victim, Clyde, 'Guilty' for being stupid enough to go out in the middle of the desert with a couple of guys who both hate his guts. That is all. Court is adjourned."
Way to overturn the argument!
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
"So it can be said.. THE DEATH WAS A SUICIDE!""It's like pointing a gun at a police officer with the intentions of getting shot in Self-Defence!"
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
I am lying.
Gender: Female
Location: Floating in a sea of pink lipgloss. YUM!<3
Rank: Desk Jockey
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:59 pm
Posts: 58
Quote:
Replacing the poison with sand was the best way to save him!
It was not! You don't save someone by killing them another way. Besides, a person would suffer much more if dying because of dehydration. We know the poison would have killed Clyde instantly. So what's the point in saving him just by killing him another way and, on top of that, by making him die more slowly?
{ Waiting for divine inspiration. }
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
DoMaya wrote:
Well it's obvious the only one to blame is Clyde.
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Yeah, ok. I think you just won the topic. To you, sir, I give a cookie.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
justis76 wrote:
DoMaya wrote:
Well it's obvious the only one to blame is Clyde.
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Who the hell would go camping with two people that hate you?
Yeah, ok. I think you just won the topic. To you, sir, I give a cookie.
.........Thank you.
you fed me.
The self proclaimed troll...
I think I need to go lie down.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
justis76 wrote:
...I just fed the troll. DAMMIT! I only had two rules, two rules when I joined! And I just broke the first...
I'll never troll this site.
EVER
I respect the game and the people on this site far too much.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Even me?
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
I'm like a dog.
only I can't lick myself very well.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
anyways, bob was directly responsible for clyde's death, by putting the sand in the canteen. how would the sand save him? why would he put the sand in there if his goal was not to save clyde? how would bob even know there was poison in his canteen, if he and alan were working independently?
alan may have been the one who destroyed the source of water, but he died of dehydration, as a result of the sand in the canteen, not because of the poison. even if bob accidentally extended clyde's life, it doesn't amount to anything, as he wasn't trying to save him.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Gender: None specified
Location: North America
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:02 am
Posts: 295
"Is A as morally/ethically responsible as B" is a different question.
Von Karma: Corrupt Attorney fangame on Ace Attorney Online; Case 1 - Part 1 Released!
Sprites for VKCA
Sprites for VKCA
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Oh boy oh boy oh boy!
Gender: Male
Location: CA
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:26 am
Posts: 4993
Life's a Happy Song when there's someone by your side to sing along!
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
Yaragorm wrote:
Why would Clyde even continue drinking the sand anyway? Wouldn't he have stopped as soon as he knew he wasn't drinking water?
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
They don't :c
Gender: Male
Location: http://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/southamerica/political-map-of-Argentina.gif
Rank: Moderators
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 3188
Yaragorm wrote:
Why would Clyde even continue drinking the sand anyway? Wouldn't he have stopped as soon as he knew he wasn't drinking water?
He started drinking, and thought "Wait, this is sand! But it tastes too good to let it go!", kept drinking, and died.
But died happy.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
He didn't drink it, did he? He just had nothing else to drink.
I don't find this case very plausible, for the following reasons.
Clyde: Hey guys, my canteen is filled with sand. Can I have some of yours?
Alan: No way man!
Bob: Lol, no.
(2 Days Later)
Clyde: Guys...Oh god...I'm dying...Please...water...
Alan: LALALALALA, I can't heare you! LALALALALALALALA...
Bob: Sorry, I just finished mine. *drinks water from canteen imediately afterwards*
It just seems really stupid to me. Did anybody notice it goes A(lan)B(ob)C(lyde), btw?
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
justis76 wrote:
>_>
He didn't drink it, did he? He just had nothing else to drink.
I don't find this case very plausible, for the following reasons.
Clyde: Hey guys, my canteen is filled with sand. Can I have some of yours?
Alan: No way man!
Bob: Lol, no.
(2 Days Later)
Clyde: Guys...Oh god...I'm dying...Please...water...
Alan: LALALALALA, I can't heare you! LALALALALALALALA...
Bob: Sorry, I just finished mine. *drinks water from canteen imediately afterwards*
It just seems really stupid to me. Did anybody notice it goes A(lan)B(ob)C(lyde), btw?
He didn't drink it, did he? He just had nothing else to drink.
I don't find this case very plausible, for the following reasons.
Clyde: Hey guys, my canteen is filled with sand. Can I have some of yours?
Alan: No way man!
Bob: Lol, no.
(2 Days Later)
Clyde: Guys...Oh god...I'm dying...Please...water...
Alan: LALALALALA, I can't heare you! LALALALALALALALA...
Bob: Sorry, I just finished mine. *drinks water from canteen imediately afterwards*
It just seems really stupid to me. Did anybody notice it goes A(lan)B(ob)C(lyde), btw?
FerdieLance wrote:
and independently plot to murder him when he goes on a side-trip alone.
you win the internet justis
that said, this clyde character isn't very smart
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
But seriously, what I'm saying is that
1) Wouldn't Clyde probably double check all his equipment first before he heads out? After all, the desert can be a deadly place and you don't want anything to go wrong.
OR
2) Wouldn't he just return to Bob and Alan once he realized his water canteen was useless? I can't imagine he got too far without wanting a drink. Unless of course they all went on side-trips, but I don't think that was specified.
I come to two conclusions:
-Clyde was an idiot (Further shown by wandering into the middle of the desert with two guys that hate you, moron)
-Bob and Alan were jerk faces that wouldn't share water
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
oh, but then alan wouldn't know that he didn't die from poison, and could come back and ask for more water.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
Quote:
Using the information that you gave us, we know that Bob's motive was to kill Clyde, and by putting sand in his water he achieved this goal. Alan is guilty of attempted murder. I think i's a pretty black and white question.
Kristoph: (adjusts glasses) Most people who are untrained in law reply this way, for exactly the reasons you've given. However... the next time you see the phrase "classic legal problem," I suggest you consider it more carefully before using the phrase "black-and-white question."
Edgeworth: (Hmm... as Larry would put it, 'Somebody has his panties in a bunch today.')
Quote:
Mr. Clyde's death was caused by dehydratation. Caused by sand. Whatever where his intentions, Mr. Clyde died by the sand put there by Mr. Bob. Therefore, the sand is the murder weapon. So, premeditated or not, Mr. Bob's guilty of murder. Since apparently Mr. Bob confessed to putting the sand there, and Mr. Clyde died due to the sand, then he murdered him.
Kristoph: The death was caused by lack of water. Lack of poisoned water. Not the sand itself.
Edgeworth: OBJECTION! If no sand had been there, the victim might have discovered the lack of weight in the canteen... and never gone on his fatal journey at all! The sand played a vital role in his death!
Kristoph: OBJECTION! This does not, in any way, make sand the 'murder weapon!'
Quote:
Well it's obvious the only one to blame is Clyde.
Kristoph: You mustn't be too hard on him. Some people can conceal their hatred for years on end.
Quote:
It was not! You don't save someone by killing them another way. Besides, a person would suffer much more if dying because of dehydration. We know the poison would have killed Clyde instantly. So what's the point in saving him just by killing him another way and, on top of that, by making him die more slowly?
Kristoph: The possibility that he would return alive was far higher after Bob's actions. If he had checked his canteen within a mile or so of camp, the plot would have failed entirely. And the issue of 'suffering' is entirely immaterial to the case.
I fail to see why this jury is so fixated on direct cause! If the only way to be a murderer was by direct cause, it would be impossible to prosecute people who hire hitmen!
Quote:
alan may have been the one who destroyed the source of water, but he died of dehydration, as a result of the sand in the canteen, not because of the poison.
Quote:
alan may have been the one who destroyed the source of water, but he died of dehydration
Quote:
alan may have been the one who destroyed the source of water, but he died of dehydration
Kristoph: I believe that this makes my case better than I ever could.
Quote:
At the heart of the matter is the fact that Alan is the one who is FIRST responsible for making the victim's water undrinkable by poisoning it. At that moment, assuming no other source of water is forthcoming for the victim, it is a given that the victim will die, no matter what else happens. Therefore, Bob's actions (dumping out the water and replacing it with sand) are essentially meaningless. Therefore, incredible as it may seem, Alan is indeed guilty of murder.
Kristoph: At last! A mind that grasps subtlety!
Edgeworth: If by 'subtlety,' you mean 'counterfactual arguments.'
(You know, this is exactly the reasoning many people give if they have a background in counterfactual logic and/or 'but-for' rules of law! I probably shouldn't have given the variant with the 'sand' - that seems to have distracted posters from the central point.)
----
A NEW ARGUMENT APPEARS!
Edgeworth: I now understand Kristoph's arguments entirely. Indeed, direct cause is not the issue. And this, gentlemen of the court... is why I intend to see both men convicted for murder. Imagine the following scenario:
In the desert, Alan stabs Clyde in the kidney, a mortal wound that would guarantee death by blood loss. Then, through the wall of the tent, without seeing the bleeding, Bob shoots Clyde, instantly killing him. Would any jury fail to convict both men for murder?
If we do not accept this, a murderer could become an attempted murderer simply by having a third party 'finish the job' for him. Here, Alan began the murder, and Bob finished it. That he changed the 'cause of death' is irrelevant - ultimately, both men were murderers.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
and also, no, the victim was not absolutely dead after alan poisoned his canteen. alan had no idea of bob's plot, so he probably would have thought he would not need to get away instantly, because he had no idea clyde might come back asking for water.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Alan might be guilty, sorta. I mean technically, Bob wasn't that important. Was he? In truth, Alan may be to blame.
Think about it: Alan was the one that destroyed the source of water. Keep in mind that Clyde died of dehydration. So although Alan had tried to poison Clyde, it doesn't matter because there isn't much Bob could have done anyways.
In a way, they're both guilty.
Alan because he destroyed the source of water, Bob because he prompted Clyde not to drink anything. Alan is more guilty, though. All Bob did was change the way Clyde died, he's more of an accomplice than anything else. No, Alan is the true criminal.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
it all comes down to if clyde could have lived after alan poisoned his canteen, which he could have. he might have been able to notice the sand in his canteen, and ask one of them for water, take their means of transporation, steal their water, etc. etc. etc.
the real problem with this situation is the generalizations of the characters and the large room for doubt, lack of details in a hypothetical situation.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
I find that this story gets more and more complex the more you think about it.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
i argue that these situations are not the same, as clyde could have survived by realizing the sand in the canteen, and going to back to alan or bob (depending on how fast they get away) and stealing their transporation or water.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
I am lying.
Gender: Female
Location: Floating in a sea of pink lipgloss. YUM!<3
Rank: Desk Jockey
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:59 pm
Posts: 58
Quote:
If he had checked his canteen within a mile or so of camp, the plot would have failed entirely.
Quote:
Kristoph: I believe that this makes my case better than I ever could.
1. But how could he survive if no one wanted to give him some water?
2. I don't think so...if the poison had killed Clyde, then it means he had drunk the water, so he would have died poisoned, but not thirsty :q
Quote:
Edgeworth: I now understand Kristoph's arguments entirely. Indeed, direct cause is not the issue. And this, gentlemen of the court... is why I intend to see both men convicted for murder. Imagine the following scenario:
In the desert, Alan stabs Clyde in the kidney, a mortal wound that would guarantee death by blood loss. Then, through the wall of the tent, without seeing the bleeding, Bob shoots Clyde, instantly killing him. Would any jury fail to convict both men for murder?
If we do not accept this, a murderer could become an attempted murderer simply by having a third party 'finish the job' for him. Here, Alan began the murder, and Bob finished it. That he changed the 'cause of death' is irrelevant - ultimately, both men were murderers.
In the desert, Alan stabs Clyde in the kidney, a mortal wound that would guarantee death by blood loss. Then, through the wall of the tent, without seeing the bleeding, Bob shoots Clyde, instantly killing him. Would any jury fail to convict both men for murder?
If we do not accept this, a murderer could become an attempted murderer simply by having a third party 'finish the job' for him. Here, Alan began the murder, and Bob finished it. That he changed the 'cause of death' is irrelevant - ultimately, both men were murderers.
Oh, I agree with Edgey. <3
{ Waiting for divine inspiration. }
Last edited by Lje on Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed