The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
Sep 22 2005, 10:58 PM
If a person has the HIV virus, knows he has it and has sex with someone and transmits it. Should that person be charged with committing some kind of crime? Is that person a murderer?
xcr
Sep 22 2005, 11:01 PM
Well, if he does not tell the person, then yes, it is murder.
Stimulant
Sep 23 2005, 12:33 AM
I don't think you can murder someone, and they can still be alive...
xcr
Sep 23 2005, 12:43 AM
If you condemn them irreversibly to death, I see not particular reason to wait until death actually occurs before labeling the act as murder.
Stimulant
Sep 23 2005, 12:52 AM
because we are already condemned to death as is? And HIV isn't as fatal as it used to be, especially in America?
Furthermore, by the time they get croaking, statue of limitations has be kicking in.
Hell, the way prison is nowadays, you could go to prison for killing him, get out on good time, and he could still be freakin alive.
Bar-Aram
Sep 23 2005, 12:55 AM
Isn't there a crime called "reckless endangerment" or something like that? I think that would be more appropriate than a murder charge.
The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
Sep 23 2005, 01:03 AM
QUOTE(Stimulant @ Sep 22 2005, 07:52 PM)
because we are already condemned to death as is? And HIV isn't as fatal as it used to be, especially in America?
Furthermore, by the time they get croaking, statue of limitations has be kicking in.
Hell, the way prison is nowadays, you could go to prison for killing him, get out on good time, and he could still be freakin alive.
This is a pretty ignorant statement. There have been process in stoping how many white "helper" cells HIV kills and thus detering the time it takes to develop AIDS but the development of AIDS is still inevitable. 15 years to live (with medication) does not seem like "alot" to me, especially if you can afford to pay for the antiretroviral drugs to stop the virus from killing your white blood cells. No, not everyone is Magic Johnson.
Stimulant
Sep 23 2005, 01:04 AM
also, because the sex-ee has to take some responsiblity for screwing around?
Giving a person AIDS, and stabbing children with a pitchfork should not be contained under the same crime.
The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
Sep 23 2005, 01:10 AM
QUOTE
also, because the sex-ee has to take some responsiblity for screwing around?
Yes, so the person having sex is suppose to magically know if the other has HIV. I am all for couples getting themselves tested before having sex but this idea you have of "it's your fault you got the virus" is ridiculous.
QUOTE
Giving a person AIDS, and stabbing children with a pitchfork should not be contained under the same crime.
You are incorrect in this statement, people don't transmit AIDS they transmit HIV which becomes AIDS once the white "helper" blood cells are down to below 300-200 and the immune system is entirely incapable of fighting off diseases.
Stimulant
Sep 23 2005, 01:16 AM
holy shit, that makes a huge fucking difference!!!!!1
Giving a person HIV, and stabbing children with a pitchfork should not be contained under the same crime
xcr
Sep 23 2005, 01:19 AM
reckless endangerment might be more appropriate, you have a point (Bar Aram).
Stimulant- why not? Both are very harmful to the person in question.
The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
Sep 23 2005, 01:22 AM
Yes, the difference being that one can live normally with the HIV virus while when it develops to AIDS they are susceptable to various diseases which leave them on a death bed. Also, another important reason being that AIDS is not a virus it is a stage in HIV, thus saying that it can be "transmitted" is ludicrous.
Stimulant shows the reason why we need better sex education programs at schools around the country.
QUOTE
Giving a person HIV, and stabbing children with a pitchfork should not be contained under the same crime
I am not talking about just transmitting HIV but
knowing that you are HIV positive and still engaging in sexual activities. Would that be criminal?
Stimulant
Sep 23 2005, 01:26 AM
Your mother was my sex education program.
Regardless ,this is pretty fucking tangential.
1. You aren't certain it WILL spread by having sex with a person with hiv.
2. You aren't certain they will die because of the hiv, or prematurely to a bunch of other causes. Hell, you could be guilty of murdering someone who dies in a car accident.
3. Even if they do acquire aids, it won't be your diease that offs em.
EDIT:
Yes, it should be criminal. But certainly not murder. Reckless endangerment seems more practical.
Sir Buckethead
Sep 23 2005, 02:20 AM
is there statute of limitations on murder?
JLord
Sep 23 2005, 04:18 AM
There generally is not on crimes.
libvertaruan
Sep 23 2005, 05:49 AM
Something in between reckless endangerment and murder.
Telum
Sep 23 2005, 11:12 AM
QUOTE(Sir Buckethead @ Sep 22 2005, 10:20 PM)
is there statute of limitations on murder?
Yes there is. Most crimes do have a statue of limitations. In general though, I think anything with the death penalty has no such statute.
Stimulant
Sep 23 2005, 11:44 AM
lolz, the "lawyer" got pwned by tesh.
zaragosa
Sep 23 2005, 11:59 AM
Criminal Transmission of HIV is a crime in its own right in many places - at least in the UK and several US states.
zaragosa
Sep 23 2005, 12:03 PM
Iowa Code 2003 Supplement: Section 709C.1QUOTE(Iowa Code)
709C.1 Criminal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus.
1. A person commits criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus if the person, knowing that the person's human immunodeficiency virus status is positive, does any of the following:
a. Engages in intimate contact with another person.
b. Transfers, donates, or provides the person's blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for transfusion, transplantation, insemination, or other administration to another person.
c. Dispenses, delivers, exchanges, sells, or in any other way transfers to another person any nonsterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used by the person infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
2. For the purposes of this section:
a. "Human immunodeficiency virus" means the human immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
b. "Intimate contact" means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
c. "Intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia" means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is peculiar to and marketed for use in injecting a substance into or withdrawing a bodily fluid from the human body.
3. Criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus is a class "B" felony.
4. This section shall not be construed to require that an infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has occurred for a person to have committed criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.
5. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus knew that the infected person had a positive human immunodeficiency virus status at the time of the action of exposure, knew that the action of exposure could result in transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, and consented to the action of exposure with that knowledge.
zaragosa
Sep 23 2005, 12:05 PM
IIRC before these laws, people that knowlingly exposed others to the HIV were charged with "grievous bodily harm", battery, attempted murder etc.
Dragonspirit
Sep 23 2005, 03:37 PM
Not murder, but certainly a serious crime similar to voluntarily manslaughter.
Dakyron
Sep 23 2005, 05:07 PM
QUOTE(Stimulant @ Sep 22 2005, 05:52 PM)
because we are already condemned to death as is? And HIV isn't as fatal as it used to be, especially in America?
Furthermore, by the time they get croaking, statue of limitations has be kicking in.
Hell, the way prison is nowadays, you could go to prison for killing him, get out on good time, and he could still be freakin alive.
and then you could legally kill that person, in broad daylight with 5,000 people around you, admit doing it, videotape it, sell the videotape to unscrupulous producers and not go to jail due to double jeopardy(remember that lame movie with Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd).
QUOTE(Bar-Aram @ Sep 22 2005, 05:55 PM)
Isn't there a crime called "reckless endangerment" or something like that? I think that would be more appropriate than a murder charge.
Why? The only reason you could say that is because murder generally has to include the intent to kill the person. However if the actions you take will possibly kill that person, and then they die, then you could also be convicted of murder(drunk driving, etc...)
QUOTE(The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A @ Sep 22 2005, 06:03 PM)
This is a pretty ignorant statement. There have been process in stoping how many white "helper" cells HIV kills and thus detering the time it takes to develop AIDS but the development of AIDS is still inevitable. 15 years to live (with medication) does not seem like "alot" to me, especially if you can afford to pay for the antiretroviral drugs to stop the virus from killing your white blood cells. No, not everyone is Magic Johnson.
Regardless, the fact that even one person survives after contracting HIV would make murder an impossibility until the person actually died, as stimulant has suggested. Attempted murder though you could still convict them on. As others have suggested, a separate crime should be created to categorize this. I would make the punishment sequential sentences combining the sentences for rape, fraud, aggravated battery, and (either attempted murder or murder depending on if they died since by the time they serve this sentence it will have been 10-15 years).
Reasoning behind that is:
Rape - if the person had known you had HIV, there is no way they have sex with you, thus rape via extraordinary fraud.
Fraud - obvious here, you fraudulently presented yourself as being deadly-disease free.
Aggravated Battery - for purposefully infecting someone with a deadly disease.
QUOTE(Sir Buckethead @ Sep 22 2005, 07:20 PM)
is there statute of limitations on murder?
No.
JLord
Sep 23 2005, 06:28 PM
QUOTE
and then you could legally kill that person, in broad daylight with 5,000 people around you, admit doing it, videotape it, sell the videotape to unscrupulous producers and not go to jail due to double jeopardy.
I don't think so...
The limitations crimes vary by jurisdiction. I'd say that most serious crimes have no limitation date. While lots of minor crimes have limitation dates, they don't help you much. The limitation period is generally stopped while a forensic investigation is going on, and is also generally stopped by the accused being out of the jurisdiction. So the only way for it to apply in practice is if you commit a crime, stay in the state, no investigation is going on, and then somehow years later they accuse you of the crime. But it could happen.
Dakyron
Sep 23 2005, 06:40 PM
JLord - I meant that you cannot be convicted of the same crime twice... thus if you supposedly murder someone, go to jail, complete your sentence, and they are still alive you can then murder them because you cannot be convicted of murdering the same person twice...
JLord
Sep 23 2005, 08:28 PM
Not true. If you are tried for murdering someone who is really still alive, murdering them after the trial would not be the same crime and would not invoke double jeopardy.
Dakyron
Sep 23 2005, 08:33 PM
QUOTE(JLord @ Sep 23 2005, 01:28 PM)
Not true. If you are tried for murdering someone who is really still alive, murdering them after the trial would not be the same crime and would not invoke double jeopardy.
WHAT?!? Are you completely stupid? No seriously, you need to answer that. Even a stupid person can understand such a simple concept.
You are charged with murdering someone. You cannot be charged for the same crime twice. You cannot have two separate instances of murder involving the same victim(ie: you can only be murdered once a lifetime). Thus, you can never be charged for murdering someone if you have already served prison time after being convicted of murderint that same person.
It is an absurd concept, but nevertheless it is true. Either your first sentence would have to be legally (insert proper legal term for making it go away) and compensation for wrongful conviction given to you or you can murder that same person and not serve additional time.
If you wish to dispute this you must provide some type of legal argument.
JLord
Sep 23 2005, 08:45 PM
Wrong. Suppose you were convicted of murder and served your sentance. Then the guy you were accused of murdering turned out to be still alive. So obviously you were wrongly convicted. That doesn't mean you can now murder him without penalty.
Under your theory, suppose I break into your house and get convicted and serve time. That means I can now break into your house whenever I want without penalty.
This is wrong. Double jeopardy only prevents a person from being tried twice for the same alleged incident. It doesn't give you free reign to commit the same crime against the same victim at a later date. That would be a seperate incident.
I declare that if you can't understand this, it is you who is completely stupid.
Dakyron
Sep 23 2005, 08:50 PM
QUOTE(JLord @ Sep 23 2005, 01:45 PM)
Wrong. Suppose you were convicted of murder and served your sentance. Then the guy you were accused of murdering turned out to be still alive. So obviously you were wrongly convicted. That doesn't mean you can now murder him without penalty.
Under your theory, suppose I break into your house and get convicted and serve time. That means I can now break into your house whenever I want without penalty.
This is wrong. Double jeopardy only prevents a person from being tried twice for the same alleged incident. It doesn't give you free reign to commit the same crime against the same victim at a later date. That would be a seperate incident.
I declare that if you can't understand this, it is you who is completely stupid.
BUT YOU CANNOT MURDER SOMEONE TWICE, thus you must either have your conviction reversed or whatever the terminology is or you can murder him and get away with it.
Its not like breaking into your house, because you can do that more than once, but you CANNOT MURDER THE SAME PERSON MORE THAN ONCE, so you would essentially be convicted of the same crime again.
JLord
Sep 23 2005, 08:57 PM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ Sep 23 2005, 02:50 PM)
BUT YOU CANNOT MURDER SOMEONE TWICE, thus you must either have your conviction reversed or whatever the terminology is or you can murder him and get away with it.
Well obviously your conviction could be reversed if the person was found to be alive. But even if it wasn't then you could be convicted again for murdering the same person. Obviously everyone would realize that one of those convictions was wrongful, but the standard rules of double jeopardy apply to muder. The thing you're missing is that double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice for the same crime. You don't have to be convicted.
QUOTE
Its not like breaking into your house, because you can do that more than once, but you CANNOT MURDER THE SAME PERSON MORE THAN ONCE, so you would essentially be convicted of the same crime again.
But you can be tried for murdering the same person twice. And you can be convicted for murdering the same person twice but obviously the first conviciton would be wrong. You can't be tried twice for the same crime though. (That is the same charge and the same incident)
Dakyron
Sep 23 2005, 09:14 PM
I dont understand... you are saying you can commit two different offenses of murder on the same person? It doesnt matter if the first trial is wrong, you still were sent to prison for it and served the entire sentence.
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"
Thus, you cannot be sent back to prison. The exceptions to this rule do not apply here. Here we are talking the same offense(murder), same victim, same perpetrator, so I dont see how you can be sent to prison again. I just dont see it.
You can say no all you want, but it doesnt matter. You cannot be charged twice for murdering the same person once you have completed your sentence.
The WORST that could happen is that you are sentenced to time already served.
Telum
Sep 24 2005, 11:43 AM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ Sep 23 2005, 05:14 PM)
I dont understand... you are saying you can commit two different offenses of murder on the same person? It doesnt matter if the first trial is wrong, you still were sent to prison for it and served the entire sentence.
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"
Thus, you cannot be sent back to prison. The exceptions to this rule do not apply here. Here we are talking the same offense(murder), same victim, same perpetrator, so I dont see how you can be sent to prison again. I just dont see it.
You can say no all you want, but it doesnt matter. You cannot be charged twice for murdering the same person once you have completed your sentence.
The WORST that could happen is that you are sentenced to time already served.
You arent charged with murder vs a particular person. The charge is murder. You can be charged with murder twice.
Dakyron
Sep 24 2005, 08:44 PM
of course you can be charged with murder twice but not for murdering the same person...
It is an impossibility to murder the same person twice.
In order to be charged again, it cannot be for the same offense(meaning same crime, same victim, etc...), in this case, it would be the same offense since a person cannot be murdered twice.
Like I said, the worst that could happen would be to be sentenced to time already served.
Telum
Sep 24 2005, 09:25 PM
Thats not how it works.
The police arrest me for killing Adam.
I am charged with murder.
I am sent to jail.
Adam is found to be alive, so obviously, I did not kill him. Sentence is
reversed.
I get angry that Adam ruined my life by letting me get sent to jail, and I shoot him.
I am charged with a 2nd charge of murder, having no relation to the first, and am sentenced to jail again.
libvertaruan
Sep 25 2005, 03:33 AM
don't hate on authority. Let me tell you what to do.q
Gengari
Sep 25 2005, 10:53 AM
QUOTE(Alberich @ Sep 23 2005, 09:37 AM)
Not murder, but certainly a serious crime similar to voluntarily manslaughter.
Oddly enough, I concur.
Sir Buckethead
Sep 26 2005, 12:07 AM
So I have two nays and one aye for whether murder has a Statute of Limitations. Perhaps it varies by state.
Dakyron
Sep 26 2005, 06:11 AM
QUOTE(Telum @ Sep 24 2005, 02:25 PM)
Thats not how it works.
The police arrest me for killing Adam.
I am charged with murder.
I am sent to jail.
Adam is found to be alive, so obviously, I did not kill him. Sentence is
reversed.
I get angry that Adam ruined my life by letting me get sent to jail, and I shoot him.
I am charged with a 2nd charge of murder, having no relation to the first, and am sentenced to jail again.
We are not talking about the sentence being reversed though, you have to have finished your sentence completely for this to be true. If you served 15 years(we're in CA in this made-up scenario) for murdering Adam, you get out and find him alive, and then you murder him, you cannot be sentenced for another 15-life because you already server your time for killing him...
You cannot have two separate instances of murder involving the same victim, it is an impossibility. Therefore it would be the same offense and you would go free. Murder is not like burglary, where you could burglarize a house ten times... you cannot murde the same person ten times...
In your scenario the sentence is reversed indicating a legal error, in my scenario, the error isnt caught until after your sentence is ended...
Telum
Sep 26 2005, 07:29 PM
No no no. You didnt serve time for killing Adam. You served time for killing.
JLord
Sep 26 2005, 08:29 PM
You don't get credit for time served in a false conviction. You certainly don't get to credit that time towards another seperate conviction. Even if the crime is the same, the victim is the same, etc. You are totally out to lunch Dak. You seem to trust Hollywood's portrayal of the law instead of common sense. There is no authority for what you are saying, and no judge in the world would agree with you.
Here is an example of double jeopardy:
I am charged with murdering Adam on September 25, 2005.
We go to trial and I am found guilty.
I serve 10 years and get out.
Then I am charged again with murdering Adam on September 25, 2005.
--------------------------------------
Now an example a situation that does not invoke double jeopardy:
The police arrest me for killing Adam.
I am charged with murder.
I am sent to jail.
Adam is found to be alive, so obviously, I did not kill him. Sentence is
reversed.
I get angry that Adam ruined my life by letting me get sent to jail, and I shoot him.
I am charged with a 2nd charge of murder, having no relation to the first, and am sentenced to jail again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Another identical and perfectly analogous example:
I am charged and convicted of Stealing Dak's car
I serve my time, get out and steal the same car again from Dak.
NOT DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
TWO SEPERATE INCIDENTS!
CONTRARY TO WHAT HOLLYWOOD MOVIES HAVE TAUGHT YOU!
Dakyron
Sep 26 2005, 09:40 PM
You are incorrect again JLord.
You assume two things.
First, that if you were sentenced for stealing my car, and they never found the car.
2 years pass, you are released, you walk into the woods, find my car you stashed, get in and drive home. They now cannot convict you of stealing my car again because it is the same car and you never relinquished possession of the car. Thus you did not actually steal it again, despite the fact that you are driving around in it. Yes, they will take the car back and perhaps charge you with possession of stolen property for driving a stolen car, but for the actual theft, no.
The second thing you assume, and I have attempted to beat this into your head, is that the conviction IS NEVER REVERSED until you actually kill the person.
This means you suffered the entire punishment under the law. Now, once they find out he was alive, and that you didnt kill him before but just killed him now, they cannot again charge you with murder because you have already been sentenced for this crime.
JLord
Sep 26 2005, 10:27 PM
Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice for the same thing. Doesn't matter if you're convicted.
Being wrongfully convicted does not count as time served against future crimes. It doesn't matter if you served the entire sentance. You think a defence to murder would be "I was wrongfully convicted of murdering this person before and served my time." That is insane. I understand exactly what you are trying to say. I also understand that you have simply made all this up and that there is no legal basis for what you are saying.
Dakyron
Sep 26 2005, 11:02 PM
There is no precedent either way, so you effectively made all this up as well...
You wouldnt need a defense because you had already been found guilty. Guilt or innocence would be irrelevant. You had already served your time and cannot be forced to serve it again.
Show me a case where this scenario occured.
You cannot, thus for you to say that *I* made this up is ridiculous. We are arguing a theoretical case that most likely will never occur.
JLord
Sep 26 2005, 11:11 PM
The precedent is the basic principle of double jeopardy. You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Under no circumstances can alleged murder 20 years ago and one today be considered the same crime, regardless of if the alleged victim is the same in both cases.
You have come up with a whole bunch of irrelevant factors. You say if the person has served their entire false sentance, they cannot be tried for another murder of the same person. Serving your sentance has no bearing on the principle of double jeopardy. You must have just made that requirement up.
Then you say that time served after being falsely convicted can somehow apply against future crimes. Since this is totally absurd, I assume you made it up.
"You wouldnt need a defense because you had already been found guilty"
Yeah, of a DIFFERENT CRIME! Even though the alleged victim may be the same, the crime is different. If you are convicted for an alleged criminal act that allegedly occured 20 years ago, it would be retarded to say that an event that occurs today is the same crime. The victim and offense may be the same, but it isn't the same crime unless the charges stem from the same events. This is well established law and is grounded in common sense. Anyone who doesn't see this is totally missing the point. (or mabye they don't understand that movies are make-believe and not real)
Dakyron
Sep 26 2005, 11:34 PM
No, you cannot murder someone twice. That is what you are not getting. You cannot murder someone twice. You cannot murder someone twice. You cannot murder someone twice.
It is a physical and logical impossibility. It. Can. Not. Happen.
You see, when you murder someone they die. Therefore you cannot murder them again. It is impossible. Thus, one has to conclude that it is the same crime. Why? Because you cannot murder someone twice, and we have the same victim, it *must* be the same crime, because a person cannot die twice and thus cannot be murdered twice. Having already been tried for that crime, you are not subjected to any further punishment per the constitution's "double jeopardy" statement.
You argue that they are two separate crimes. However, this is impossible because a person cannot be murdered twice(sense a theme here?). Now, since it cannot be a separate crime, and the victim, perpetrator, and offense are the same, it must be the same crime and thus you cannot be charged for it.
You also completely throw out time already served(if the sentence was completed) as if that is completely irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? You served time for murder, how could a judge in good conscious subject you to future time for committing one murder.
See, here is the thing, in this scenario one murder is committed. You serve time for one murder under my understanding. Under youre understanding, a person can commit one murder and be subjected to two trials and two sentences. That is what double jeopardy sought to avoid.
Tell me though, when only one person dies, how can there be two murders committed?
Telum
Sep 27 2005, 12:27 AM
Murder here is the legal concept, not the state of having killed someone.
You can be senteced for murdering someone, when you have never murdered someone.
JLord
Sep 27 2005, 12:50 AM
Dak - Here is what you don't understand: You can be found guilty of murdering the same person twice. Wrongful convictions can occur. We all know you can't murder a person twice. That is irrelevant. No need to mention it again in this discussion.
BEING WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF A CRIME DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO COMMIT SIMILAR CRIMES AT A LATER DATE WITHOUT FURTHER PENALTY!
"and we have the same victim, it *must* be the same crime, because a person cannot die twice and thus cannot be murdered twice"
This is wrong. It is not the same crime. It proves that one of the convictions was a false conviciton. But it does not make it the same alleged crime.
Dakyron
Sep 27 2005, 01:09 AM
Explain then how you can be sentenced for two murders when you have been convicted of killing only one person.
JLord
Sep 27 2005, 02:23 AM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ Sep 26 2005, 07:09 PM)
Explain then how you can be sentenced for two murders when you have been convicted of killing only one person.
It's very simple. One of the sentances was wrongful.
Dakyron
Sep 27 2005, 06:47 PM
Obviously.
However, having served time for a crime, you cannot be convicted again and sentenced to serve time for the same crime.
We have established the same person cannot be murdered more than once, cannot be murdered in two different ways, nor can he be murdered at two different times. That has been established by JLord and myself previously in this thread.
Therefore, when involving the same victim, being convicted of murder more than once constitutes double jeopardy, no matter how much you dont like it.
Because, as you said, a person cannot be murdered more than once. Therefore, if murder is the charge, and the victim is the same, then it MUST be the same crime.
By saying that when this occurs, essentially the judge would throw out the earlier sentence of murder(since the person was alive past that time), you have been absolved of responsibility in the murder of that victim. Well, guess what, he is already dead now and you have been legally proven to not have murdered him. To then go and charge that person with murder again immediately after absolving him of murder, does not fit in any of the known exceptions to the double jeopardy rule.
Serving two murder sentences for one murder is illegal. It would fall under: cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy.
I have to ask you another question.
Would it be morally right to sentence someone again for murder in this situation? After all, they served their time in prison for the murder before, whether they committed it or not. To send them back to prison, would that be morally wrong?
It is obviously legally wrong, despite your repeated protests.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.