What makes it worse is:

The portion of murders in real life that are done with poison is quite small. Less than one in a thousand.

There are all kinds of chemicals that can be dangerous, as case 3-1 made clear. Granted, not all of them actually make suitable means of attacking people.

Still, if the number of people who have Incuritis is very small, do you want to risk having the AAI smuggling ring come to your country just to cure it? (They seemed to specialize in counterfeit artifacts, but that implies poison smugglers would be even worse).


If Daryan and Machi cared about the Chief's son, why would they prepare a way to burn the cocoon, and why were they so quick to do so?

That was probably the most bittersweet part of 4-3.

I dunno, didn't anybody ever think of asking the Borginian Embassy or so, if they could send it? I mean, that was the one (known) case of Incuritis (an infection of something incurable?) in the other land. So, having that one exception might've worked - they could've sent borginian doctors/scientists over along with a police escort, so they knew nobody would get the egg.
Actually, yes, why not just ship them over and keep the whole egg thing a secret?

My memory may be wrong, but didn't the son get cured at the end?
Somehow...

C-A

---

Very true, this argument totally destroys the "they did that only for the poor sick kid" theory.

But I have to admit that the Borginian laws about the cocoon do seem a bit too strict.
If a cure for an otherwise incurable disease can be made from it, it's only logical to either distribute the cure or the cocoon itself.
So what that you can make poison using it? Every substance can be harmful if used improperly, even drinking too much water can cause death.
I can understand restricting the distribution of the cocoon, but not totally banning it when it's sometime necessary to save a human life.

I think Machi might be able to get out of the smuggling charge by pleading a necessity defense. https://www.google.com/search?q=necessi ... ss&ie=&oe=

Ah, such a thing doesn't exist in the AA Universe. There's only murder (whether accidental or planned) and accessory to murder (which gets prosecuted as murder, 2-4, you stupid case!!) and maybe some larcency.
There is a mention of justified self-defense, but only in, like, 1 case and then it's never really mentioned again.

C-A

---

Assault and battery and perjury are mentioned, although they never actually seem to be prosecuted, except maybe against

I think you're confusing accomplice and accessory after the fact. An accomplice to murder is prosecuted for murder. An accessory after the fact gets prosecuted for something like accessory, obstructing justice, harboring a fugitive, lying to investigators, etc.

Principal (main culprit or accomplice) and accessory defined

Although the games refer to people like

as "accomplices" while acquitting them, when the correct verdict for a full-blown accomplice (in the U.S. at least) would be "guilty," they get it right in effect. It seems pretty realistic that someone like would be convicted of murder. Accessory would be more like

20 people executed for murder in the U.S. since 1977 who did not directly kill anyone, 10 as felony murder rule co-culprits and 10 for soliciting assassinations.

The games, while still horribly unrealistic, have been getting slightly more realistic with the AAI team. Diplomatic immunity, extraterritoriality, tolling the statute of limitations in GK2, etc. If self-defense and insanity defenses exist, necessity defenses might as well. Most jurisdictions don't allow necessity (other than justified self-defesne or justified defense of others) as a defense in a murder case, so it might simply not come up.