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
Lje wrote:
Quote:
If he had checked his canteen within a mile or so of camp, the plot would have failed entirely.
But how could he survive if no one wanted to give him some water?
that's the problem i mentioned earlier of a hypothetical situation. we don't actually know anything about clyde, how stupid he is, or anything. i could assume he had a pistol on him, or was a world class martial artist or something that would allow him to take alan or bob's transportation 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
{ Waiting for divine inspiration. }
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
In criminal law, there are two elements of the crime:
1. Mens rea - the state of mind of the criminal
2. Actus reus - the act defined in the criminal statute, which, once completed, makes someone culpable for the crime rather than an attempt at the crime.
The Model Penal Code (which has been adopted as the criminal code, at least in some part, in a number of US states) defines murder as knowingly causing the death of a person ("causing death" being the requisite act). Knowingly allowing a third party to complete an unfinished murder set-up would be murder in any MPC state, and I can't imagine that it wouldn't be in non-MPC states.
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?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
Here, I think, the crux of the problem is the phrase "knowingly causing". What does it mean to "cause someone's death?" Is it to increase the probability of death significantly? In that case, Alan is the causer of the death, and Bob didn't really increase the probability at all. Or is it to take the physical action that is directly linked with the way in which the person died?
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?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
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
FerdieLance wrote:
Lynx: That's a great point. In that case, though, Edgeworth's point stands. His argument is that both elements were fulfilled for both suspects. Therefore, holding them both accountable is necessary for sane law - which does, in fact, prevent people from 'passing a murder' on to a third party.
Here, I think, the crux of the problem is the phrase "knowingly causing". What does it mean to "cause someone's death?" Is it to increase the probability of death significantly? In that case, Alan is the causer of the death, and Bob didn't really increase the probability at all. Or is it to take the physical action that is directly linked with the way in which the person died?
Here, I think, the crux of the problem is the phrase "knowingly causing". What does it mean to "cause someone's death?" Is it to increase the probability of death significantly? In that case, Alan is the causer of the death, and Bob didn't really increase the probability at all. Or is it to take the physical action that is directly linked with the way in which the person died?
Causation is linked with a result. It's usually described via "but for" language, i.e. "but for" the actions of A, C wouldn't have died -> A caused the murder. If you use the standard of "significantly increase the probability," you end up with the question of "what is 'significant,'" and end up having a very difficult time defining causation. Is "flying a plane dangerously low and missing people on the ground" enough for murder if those people were later killed due to something else, because it substantially increased the probability of death for those people that the plane buzzed? Also, how much later would those people need to die for the pilot to be liable? If A poisoned C's water, which C subsequently failed to drink, and B killed C with a gun 5 days later, why should A's poisoning of the water be murder when it was very distant from the actual killing?
"But for" isn't a perfect standard either: you can have a problem where two people shot at the same time, and it's unclear which bullet killed the victim. However, that's a rare case, and a standard solution (both are blameworthy) can solve it much more easily that it would be for the court to determine "substantial" involvement in the death in every case where it's at all questionable.
I don't believe that A's satisfied the actus reus, because he didn't act in a manner that actually caused someone's death. Regardless of whether A acted or not, C would have died because of B's actions.
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?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
FerdieLance wrote:
So... if he hadn't put the sand in, and Clyde had walked out with an empty canteen.... Bob would have been innocent?
the action of emptying the canteen which bob thought water was in is the same thing as putting sand in it. it's just that clyde might notice the weight difference. if bob had left the canteen alone, he would have been innocent and alan would be convicted of murder.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
"Too Awesome to Die"
Gender: Male
Location: New Arcadia
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:01 pm
Posts: 712
Child of Lida_Rose and Aliucon. Married to yuzikichan0! Father of Ha³ and Apollo72.
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
If I recall correctly, one of the original reasons for the writing of this problem was, in fact, in order to raise questions about the 'but for' standard itself.
We can't quite say that "but for the actions of Bob, Clyde wouldn't have died." Clyde would have died of poisoning if Bob hadn't acted. We get similar results if we apply the 'but for' test to Alan - Bob's removal of the water would have killed Clyde even if Alan hadn't acted. This actually seems very similar to the 'two shooters' example to me.
... but there is one way to apply the 'but for' test and get a good answer: Clyde died because he did not have drinkable water. But for the removal of the drinking water, Clyde would not have died. The first person to destroy Clyde's drinking water was Alan.
In the case where Clyde doesn't die until getting shot later, the situation is quite different. There, the destruction of the water supply had no bearing on Clyde's death, and it wouldn't have mattered if Bob had sabotaged it, either. Here, the lack of water killed Clyde.
-
What Alan did was put Clyde in a situation where he had two options:
1) Die from drinking the poisoned water.
2) Die of dehydration.
Bob's interference simply removed one option.
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
FerdieLance wrote:
We can't quite say that "but for the actions of Bob, Clyde wouldn't have died." Clyde would have died of poisoning if Bob hadn't acted. We get similar results if we apply the 'but for' test to Alan - Bob's removal of the water would have killed Clyde even if Alan hadn't acted. This actually seems very similar to the 'two shooters' example to me.
... but there is one way to apply the 'but for' test and get a good answer: Clyde died because he did not have drinkable water. But for the removal of the drinking water, Clyde would not have died. The first person to destroy Clyde's drinking water was Alan.
In the case where Clyde doesn't die until getting shot later, the situation is quite different. There, the destruction of the water supply had no bearing on Clyde's death, and it wouldn't have mattered if Bob had sabotaged it, either. Here, the lack of water killed Clyde.
... but there is one way to apply the 'but for' test and get a good answer: Clyde died because he did not have drinkable water. But for the removal of the drinking water, Clyde would not have died. The first person to destroy Clyde's drinking water was Alan.
In the case where Clyde doesn't die until getting shot later, the situation is quite different. There, the destruction of the water supply had no bearing on Clyde's death, and it wouldn't have mattered if Bob had sabotaged it, either. Here, the lack of water killed Clyde.
If we agree with this reasoning concerning the desert scenario, it should hold for the stabbing/shooting scenario, even if that one is much more graphic. Alan dealt the first blow, a mortal stab wound in the kidney. Because the wound will "guarantee death by blood loss," how can anything that follows truly be called murder? Bob's gunshot, even it hastens the victim's death in any way, is merely an additional factor leading up to a presumably inevitable outcome. Alan is the one guilty of murder. Bob is guilty of attempted murder.
Totally not my sig...
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
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
Two shooters is when the order of the actions can't be determined after the result occurs. This would be "two shooters" if A poisoned the water, then B poisoned the water, and we didn't know which poison killed C.
Anyways, none of this is responding to your main point, which I'm not fully sure I'm understanding. I believe you're making the point that if you removed B from the situation, C would have died nevertheless, so A and B are equally guilty. I agree that as a purely theoretical matter, that makes A a potential "but for" cause. But the actus reus requirement is factual, and necessitates that A in actuality led to the death of C. Since C died from dehydration and not poisoning, A did not satisfy the actus reus requirement.
I think this question should be rewritten to say that C's family sued A and B for wrongful death; then your point is a very important one, since there are no criminal law constrictions :P.
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?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
But I still think we can satisfy actus reus for A.
"C's lack of drinkable water, caused by A and made apparent by B, led directly to his death by dehydration."
How is this in any way a counterfactual possibility? It seems pretty factual to me. Even though the 'but-for' test is explicitly counterfactual, we can still factually link A to C's death.
... that point about a civil trial is a good one, but this is still a good problem, I think, for working out exactly what is meant by actus reus.
Last edited by FerdieLance on Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
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
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
If we agree with this reasoning concerning the desert scenario, it should hold for the stabbing/shooting scenario, even if that one is much more graphic. Alan dealt the first blow, a mortal stab wound in the kidney. Because the wound will "guarantee death by blood loss," how can anything that follows truly be called murder? Bob's gunshot, even it hastens the victim's death in any way, is merely an additional factor leading up to a presumably inevitable outcome. Alan is the one guilty of murder. Bob is guilty of attempted murder.
I agree with this, while Bob's actions would guarantee death, Clyde's death was already imminent. Hence, Bob's action didn't do anything to alter the probability of a fatality. Assuming his intent was to kill, I would judge that Bob is guilty of attempted murder, as while his actions would cause death in an ordinary scenario, they did little to alter the probability of death in a short timeframe here. But in court, a lawyer can argue that Bob's intent was to ease Clyde's suffering.
As for the desert scenario, it is much the same. Bob's actions seem to be the ultimate cause of death, but they did little to alter the chance of death in a short timeframe.
Although, by this logic, one could argue in the 4-4 flashback case that no one could be arrested for murder because Magnifi had cancer. You just gotta draw the line somewhere, otherwise you can't charge anyone with murder at all, as the victim will eventually die of old age.
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
FerdieLance wrote:
Uh, oh. I was worried you'd raise the point about order of events, which clearly does distinguish this from the two shooters case. That said, it seems to me that the order isn't the issue here, but the definition of an 'actual causal link' is.
But I still think we can satisfy actus reus for A.
"C's lack of drinkable water, caused by A and made obvious by B, led directly to his death."
How is this in any way a counterfactual possibility? It seems pretty factual to me. Even though the 'but-for' test is explicitly counterfactual, we can still factually link A to C's death.
... that point about a civil trial is a good one, but this is still a good problem, I think, for working out exactly what is meant by actus reus.
But I still think we can satisfy actus reus for A.
"C's lack of drinkable water, caused by A and made obvious by B, led directly to his death."
How is this in any way a counterfactual possibility? It seems pretty factual to me. Even though the 'but-for' test is explicitly counterfactual, we can still factually link A to C's death.
... that point about a civil trial is a good one, but this is still a good problem, I think, for working out exactly what is meant by actus reus.
This makes sense to me. Obviously, in many real-life situations it is very difficult to judge the probability of X definitively causing Y, but in these hypothetical situations, where the probabilities are spelled out and unambiguous, the case becomes much more cut and dried. That's the crucial difference here. Real life is much less certain, but the "facts" are spelled out in these imaginary scenarios, making it much easier to draw conclusions.
Totally not my sig...
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?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
Quote:
did you guys even read my posts
Well, I already addressed the issue of the sand - I said that I thought it wasn't all that relevant, and even you admitted that the act of taking the water out was pretty much interchangeable with "putting sand in it," as long as the weight difference wasn't discovered. I'm not sure what else to say to that.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Two more games coming up soon
Gender: Male
Location: Paris
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:45 pm
Posts: 929
In France, Alan would be found guilty of poisoning (art. 221-5 of the Penal Code: "Making an attack against the life of another person by the use or administration of substances liable to cause death constitutes poisoning." => the fact that Clyde did not die from the poison is irrelevant) while Bob would be found guilty of murder (art. 221-1 : "The wilful causing of the death of another person is murder.")
Interestingly, the sentence for poisoning and murder is the same: 30 years if not premeditated, life if premeditated.
Creator of Apollo Justice Case 5: Turnabout Substitution: Trailer - Download
Co-creator of New Year's Turnabout, Turnabout Revolution, and At Dawn's Break
Co-creator of New Year's Turnabout, Turnabout Revolution, and At Dawn's Break
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
FerdieLance wrote:
Quote:
did you guys even read my posts
Well, I already addressed the issue of the sand - I said that I thought it wasn't all that relevant, and even you admitted that the act of taking the water out was pretty much interchangeable with "putting sand in it," as long as the weight difference wasn't discovered. I'm not sure what else to say to that.
i mean how clyde's death was not imminent after alan put the poison in his canteen.
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
L_J wrote:
FerdieLance wrote:
Quote:
did you guys even read my posts
Well, I already addressed the issue of the sand - I said that I thought it wasn't all that relevant, and even you admitted that the act of taking the water out was pretty much interchangeable with "putting sand in it," as long as the weight difference wasn't discovered. I'm not sure what else to say to that.
i mean how clyde's death was not imminent after alan put the poison in his canteen.
Quote:
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.
It is true that this scenario disregards many factors that would come into play in a real-life situation, but I think that's just to keep the discussion focused on the topic of culpability. If this is the case, then, for the purposes of discussion, the victim's death IS considered inevitable. Please correct me if I am wrong, FerdieLance.
Totally not my sig...
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
in which i would just agree with lynx, alan's action of killing clyde wasn't fulfilled
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
FerdieLance wrote:
"C's lack of drinkable water, caused by A and made apparent by B, led directly to his death by dehydration."
How is this in any way a counterfactual possibility? It seems pretty factual to me. Even though the 'but-for' test is explicitly counterfactual, we can still factually link A to C's death.
How is this in any way a counterfactual possibility? It seems pretty factual to me. Even though the 'but-for' test is explicitly counterfactual, we can still factually link A to C's death.
I think it's counterfactual to say that C's lack of drinkable water was brought about by A. A doesn't satisfy the basic formulation of the test: "but for A's actions, C would not have died." C would have still died. I think I'm kind of seeing your point, but I'm not grasping it entirely. I don't see how the lack of drinkable water was last-in-time caused by A. I think it was, rather, last-in-time caused by B. I didn't cover last-in-time in torts and I didn't cover anything of use in crim law, so now I'm really in an area I know very little about...
Even if you're theoretically correct, I think this is kind of similar to Zeno's Paradox (for those unfamiliar: to run a lap around a track, you have to move halfway, but since you're always going to have to move halfway from each halfway point, you'll never move the full distance; as a result you can never reach an end point). Yes, you can use logic to say that Alan is a but-for cause, but in the real world, the theory doesn't matter. The court's still going to say that A's attempt was foiled, even if you can arrange the description of the problem to say that his attempt was successful. The actual events in the real world led to B being the murderer.
Ping: there are many times that I wish I were in a civil law country :P Mostly when I have to do legal research and look through a bunch of judge-made laws/interpretations...then again, I don't know much about other countries' legal systems, so this may be a case of "grass is greener on the other side."
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?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
In fact, I'd argue that hypotheticals are a vital tool for solving problems like this...
-
Ping': Hey, there's a solution! Set the problem in a country where both of 'em can get convicted.
-
Lynx: The thing is, B also doesn't satisfy the but-for test. "But for Bob's actions, Clyde wouldn't have died?" No - he'd surely have died.
I'd say the lack of drinkable water was, last-in-time, caused by A. As soon as A acted, the water was undrinkable. Cause and effect, done. When B acted, there was already no drinkable water, so B can hardly be blamed for that situation. You can't remove drinkable water that isn't there.
It's true that most layman juries would say that A was foiled, just as most posters here would. I'm not sure all judges would agree, though. I suspect that at least a few would be willing to charge Alan with all-out murder here, and I think they'd have a good point.
Consider the following hypothetical:
Suppose Bob hadn't acted, and some of Alan's poison remained on the rim of the canteen. As Clyde lifted up the canteen to drink, he smelled the poison, and threw the canteen away. Not long after, he died of thirst.
Clearly, Alan is the murderer in this case. As soon as Clyde realized he had no drinkable water, he was doomed. The fact that he 'wasn't actually poisoned' doesn't change a thing.
Now, let's add an extra step. Alan poisons the canteen, Bob pours out the water and replaces it with sand, and Clyde goes out into the desert. In the desert, Clyde smells the poison on the rim of the canteen, and throws it away without ever seeing the sand. He then dies of dehydration.
I suspect more people would favor Alan as the murderer in this case. Everything that Clyde did, he did because of the poison; he never saw the sand, and as far as he knew, he threw away a full canteen of water.
Any thoughts?
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 yeah, in that situation... if clyde was on a trip alone, how would you know he smelled the poison and threw it away, not just opening the can to see the sand?
but if it were to happen... i'd be leaning on convicting both of them for murder, yeah.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Perpetual Prosecutor
Gender: Male
Location: Wherever, whenever, whatever.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 350
L_J wrote:
well, my first thought is that alan would be pretty stupid to not use an odorless poison.
and yeah, in that situation... if clyde was on a trip alone, how would you know he smelled the poison and threw it away, not just opening the can to see the sand?
but if it were to happen... i'd be leaning on convicting both of them for murder, yeah.
and yeah, in that situation... if clyde was on a trip alone, how would you know he smelled the poison and threw it away, not just opening the can to see the sand?
but if it were to happen... i'd be leaning on convicting both of them for murder, yeah.
I totally agree. I believe attempted murder should be punished in the same way murder is. After all, it's the thought and plan of killing someone that should be illegal, not the killing itself. That also means accidental murder should have a smaller punishment.
Anyway, they are both equally guilty. Bob didn't know about Alan's plan, so the fact that he gave Clyde more time by replacing the poison with sand is irrelevant, because he did it unconsciously. His thought was still to kill Clyde, just like Alan.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Ooh, a real drumroll. Nice.
Gender: Male
Location: By my computer.
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:05 pm
Posts: 802
its his fault for drinking sand
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Perpetual Prosecutor
Gender: Male
Location: Wherever, whenever, whatever.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 350
Hahex wrote:
no ones guilty apart from clyde for suicide.
its his fault for drinking sand
its his fault for drinking sand
This makes me laugh.I don't think Clyde would go. "Hey look, there's sand in my cup, maybe I should suicide!"
I believe the story wants Clyde to die by accidentally drinking the sand, and making him suffocate.
If we were to follow your reasoning, every single poisoning case would be suicide because the victim drank it.
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
Akiak wrote:
I don't think Clyde would go. "Hey look, there's sand in my cup, maybe I should suicide!"
I believe the story wants Clyde to die by accidentally drinking the sand, and making him suffocate.
If we were to follow your reasoning, every single poisoning case would be suicide because the victim drank it.
I do agree with your last sentence, but I really, REALLY think the story is supposed to be merely saying that there was sand in Clyde's canteen, not water, therefore Clyde died of dehydration, not necessarily that Clyde actually drank the sand. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't really know.
I believe the story wants Clyde to die by accidentally drinking the sand, and making him suffocate.
If we were to follow your reasoning, every single poisoning case would be suicide because the victim drank it.
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
GANTALITY!
Gender: None specified
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:48 pm
Posts: 1150
FerdieLance wrote:
Three men go out in the desert on a long trip, without any phone access - call them Alan, Bob, and Clyde. Alan and Bob hate Clyde, and independently plot to murder him when he goes on a side-trip alone. Minutes before Clyde leaves, Alan puts a fast-acting, untreatable poison in Clyde's canteen. Theoretically, when he gets thirsty, he'll drink, then collapse and die on the spot.
It is assumed that Alan knows of the effects of this poison, thus this is intent to murder.
FerdieLance wrote:
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."
The intent here is unclear, it is sand, it is likely for someone of some sense to check their very precious commodity before setting off on a side-trip alone and is sand and water the same weight? This I am unsure but it, to me, boils down to intent, the intent to cause harm or hamper Clyde is here but was it intended to cause his death? A manslaughter plea can be thought of here, a gag which might have gone wrong.
FerdieLance wrote:
Inevitably, Clyde dies of dehydration.
The unfortunate outcome.
FerdieLance wrote:
Who is guilty of murder? Who is guilty of attempted murder?
The problem here is this, we know more than we should know. Nobody other than Bob knows his intent with the sand and stealing of water. Nobody other than Alan knows the water was poisoned, unless poison was found in the container afterwards. Without these pieces of information clearly defined or premeditation proven on Bob's part, it is hard to really charge anyone with murder, intent to murder perhaps, cause harm yes or manslaughter. Now if it is found that Alan brought poisons, be it on his person or at the campsite? then there is an avenue of wondering why. Ah I dunno.
I guess the two men could pointed at each other and said HE WANTED HIM DEAD, eh.
"So apparently P/I fan + Insecurity + airheadedness + strange kinks + bad grasp of reality + over eagerness = bad user........." D= /D\
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Perpetual Prosecutor
Gender: Male
Location: Wherever, whenever, whatever.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 350
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
Akiak wrote:
I don't think Clyde would go. "Hey look, there's sand in my cup, maybe I should suicide!"
I believe the story wants Clyde to die by accidentally drinking the sand, and making him suffocate.
If we were to follow your reasoning, every single poisoning case would be suicide because the victim drank it.
I do agree with your last sentence, but I really, REALLY think the story is supposed to be merely saying that there was sand in Clyde's canteen, not water, therefore Clyde died of dehydration, not necessarily that Clyde actually drank the sand. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't really know.I believe the story wants Clyde to die by accidentally drinking the sand, and making him suffocate.
If we were to follow your reasoning, every single poisoning case would be suicide because the victim drank it.
This should be cleared up.
I thought what I thought because I thought that Clyde had some kind of other access to water on his trip. People don't usually bring a water supply for the whole duration of their trip.
Besides, if Bob's intention really was to merely deprive Clyde of his beloved water, he could have merely emptied the cup.
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
SerialVER wrote:
FerdieLance wrote:
Three men go out in the desert on a long trip, without any phone access - call them Alan, Bob, and Clyde. Alan and Bob hate Clyde, and independently plot to murder him when he goes on a side-trip alone. Minutes before Clyde leaves, Alan puts a fast-acting, untreatable poison in Clyde's canteen. Theoretically, when he gets thirsty, he'll drink, then collapse and die on the spot.
It is assumed that Alan knows of the effects of this poison, thus this is intent to murder.
FerdieLance wrote:
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."
The intent here is unclear, it is sand, it is likely for someone of some sense to check their very precious commodity before setting off on a side-trip alone and is sand and water the same weight? This I am unsure but it, to me, boils down to intent, the intent to cause harm or hamper Clyde is here but was it intended to cause his death? A manslaughter plea can be thought of here, a gag which might have gone wrong.
You said it yourself, but I'll say it again:
FerdieLance wrote:
Alan and Bob hate Clyde, and independently plot to murder him
Definitely intent to kill, not a gag, and no chance of manslaughter. As for Bob's thinking in replacing Clyde's water with sand, the practical considerations surrounding this are, I think, not really supposed to be the focus here. Such questions of whether the sand would have felt the same as water, or whether Clyde should have checked his canteen before he set out alone with no other source of water, are, as stated by this thread's author, irrelevant.
SerialVER wrote:
FerdieLance wrote:
Inevitably, Clyde dies of dehydration.
The unfortunate outcome.
FerdieLance wrote:
Who is guilty of murder? Who is guilty of attempted murder?
The problem here is this, we know more than we should know. Nobody other than Bob knows his intent with the sand and stealing of water. Nobody other than Alan knows the water was poisoned, unless poison was found in the container afterwards. Without these pieces of information clearly defined or premeditation proven on Bob's part, it is hard to really charge anyone with murder, intent to murder perhaps, cause harm yes or manslaughter. Now if it is found that Alan brought poisons, be it on his person or at the campsite? then there is an avenue of wondering why. Ah I dunno.
I guess the two men could pointed at each other and said HE WANTED HIM DEAD, eh.
Again, these are questions that I don't really think need to be asked. I think it's supposed to be assumed that Alan brought poison with him for the express purpose of using it to kill Clyde. And again, Bob, whatever practical questions there may be about his actions, was also definitely trying to kill Clyde.
Akiak wrote:
This should be cleared up.
I thought what I thought because I thought that Clyde had some kind of other access to water on his trip. People don't usually bring a water supply for the whole duration of their trip.
Besides, if Bob's intention really was to merely deprive Clyde of his beloved water, he could have merely emptied the cup.
I thought what I thought because I thought that Clyde had some kind of other access to water on his trip. People don't usually bring a water supply for the whole duration of their trip.
Besides, if Bob's intention really was to merely deprive Clyde of his beloved water, he could have merely emptied the cup.
The three men are out in the middle of the desert, with no phone access, which is why the only water they would have is what they brought with them. Additionally, Bob's intention was not merely to deprive Clyde of his water, but to kill him. The method he devised for doing this was to empty Clyde's water-filled canteen (which, as you will remember, Bob had NO IDEA had already been poisoned by Alan) and, so as not to tip Clyde off that anything was wrong, replace the water with sand. Regardless of whether Clyde would have or should have noticed the difference between water in his canteen and sand in his canteen, he ABSOLUTELY would have noticed if there had been NOTHING in his canteen. Hence, Bob's actions.
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Perpetual Prosecutor
Gender: Male
Location: Wherever, whenever, whatever.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 350
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
Akiak wrote:
This should be cleared up.
I thought what I thought because I thought that Clyde had some kind of other access to water on his trip. People don't usually bring a water supply for the whole duration of their trip.
Besides, if Bob's intention really was to merely deprive Clyde of his beloved water, he could have merely emptied the cup.
I thought what I thought because I thought that Clyde had some kind of other access to water on his trip. People don't usually bring a water supply for the whole duration of their trip.
Besides, if Bob's intention really was to merely deprive Clyde of his beloved water, he could have merely emptied the cup.
The three men are out in the middle of the desert, with no phone access, which is why the only water they would have is what they brought with them. Additionally, Bob's intention was not merely to deprive Clyde of his water, but to kill him. The method he devised for doing this was to empty Clyde's water-filled canteen (which, as you will remember, Bob had NO IDEA had already been poisoned by Alan) and, so as not to tip Clyde off that anything was wrong, replace the water with sand. Regardless of whether Clyde would have or should have noticed the difference between water in his canteen and sand in his canteen, he ABSOLUTELY would have noticed if there had been NOTHING in his canteen. Hence, Bob's actions.
Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the desert bit.
That changes a lot.That still doesn't change the fact that they're both equally guilty for killing Clyde. We say it all the time: it's the thought that counts.
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
Akiak wrote:
That still doesn't change the fact that they're both equally guilty for killing Clyde. We say it all the time: it's the thought that counts.
How CAN they be equally culpable for Clyde's death? Excuse me for quoting myself, but:
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
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.
Bob, without any question, definitely attempted to kill Clyde. However, Alan had already acted to (presumably, keeping in mind the caveats of this hypothetical scenario) ensure Clyde's death. Bob is the one who tried to kill Clyde but "failed."
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
GANTALITY!
Gender: None specified
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:48 pm
Posts: 1150
Assuming that I know all the information which was stated by the author then, One charge of murder for sand boy as that was his intent and he succeeded, though moot as death was certain by then anyway and one charge of attempted/conspiracy to murder for the poison guy as he was not directly the reason for death though would have been if things worked out as he planned.
Though perhaps it could be argued both deprived the good man of drinkable water thus both were equally involved in premeditated murder, the fact he was not killed by the poison is void as poisoned water and no-water are both leading to the same conclusion and both makes the water no longer viable for hydration.
"So apparently P/I fan + Insecurity + airheadedness + strange kinks + bad grasp of reality + over eagerness = bad user........." D= /D\
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
SerialVER wrote:
Assuming that I know all the information which was stated by the author then, One charge of murder for sand boy as that was his intent and he succeeded, though moot as death was certain by then anyway
Clyde's death was certainly Bob's intent, but can it really be said that he "succeeded?" Did Clyde really die by Bob's actions? This is, as I said before, the heart of the matter. I say the answer is "no." As you said yourself, Clyde's death was certain by then, so how can Bob be charged with the actual murder of Clyde?
SerialVER wrote:
and one charge of attempted/conspiracy to murder for the poison guy as he was not directly the reason for death though would have been if things worked out as he planned.
No conspiracy here.
FerdieLance wrote:
Alan and Bob hate Clyde, and independently plot to murder him
In addition, no, Alan was admittedly not "directly" responsible for Clyde's death in that Clyde did not die of poisoning. HOWEVER, Alan is the one who initially eliminated Clyde's water supply, which, we are assuming as a caveat for this hypothetical scenario, made Clyde's death inevitable. By this reasoning, he IS directly responsible for Clyde's death, and Bob's actions were ultimately meaningless.
SerialVER wrote:
Though perhaps it could be argued both deprived the good man of drinkable water
Definitely true.
SerialVER wrote:
thus both were equally involved in premeditated murder,
Not true, as I explained above.
SerialVER wrote:
the fact he was not killed by the poison is void as poisoned water and no-water are both leading to the same conclusion and both makes the water no longer viable for hydration.
This is precisely why Alan is, in fact, guilty of murder and Bob is guilty of attempted murder, because Alan acted FIRST.
Totally not my sig...
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 i'd like to say that how clyde died is of vital importance, not just the fact that he died. and it's been pointed out already, but alan did try to poison clyde to kill him, but did not mean to kill him by dehydration. he accidentally killed him. this situation would not fulfill lynx's mentioned "actus reus" and "mens rea", if you look at it as two separate events: 1, alan tried to poison clyde and failed, and 2, alan unknowingly destroyed clyde's water supply, causing him to die from dehydration.
i suppose i would charge alan of attempted murder and accidental (i know there's some legal term for that) murder. and bob for premeditated murder as well.
and to argue my point for bob's murder: after bob dumped out the poison, clyde could have lived, he was not a dead man. but right after, he puts the sand in, making him a murderer by dehydrating clyde, and putting alan's accidental murder back in action.
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
L_J wrote:
so, shadowofedgeworth, what would you charge the men of in the gun situation?
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
FerdieLance wrote:
We can't quite say that "but for the actions of Bob, Clyde wouldn't have died." Clyde would have died of poisoning if Bob hadn't acted. We get similar results if we apply the 'but for' test to Alan - Bob's removal of the water would have killed Clyde even if Alan hadn't acted. This actually seems very similar to the 'two shooters' example to me.
... but there is one way to apply the 'but for' test and get a good answer: Clyde died because he did not have drinkable water. But for the removal of the drinking water, Clyde would not have died. The first person to destroy Clyde's drinking water was Alan.
In the case where Clyde doesn't die until getting shot later, the situation is quite different. There, the destruction of the water supply had no bearing on Clyde's death, and it wouldn't have mattered if Bob had sabotaged it, either. Here, the lack of water killed Clyde.
... but there is one way to apply the 'but for' test and get a good answer: Clyde died because he did not have drinkable water. But for the removal of the drinking water, Clyde would not have died. The first person to destroy Clyde's drinking water was Alan.
In the case where Clyde doesn't die until getting shot later, the situation is quite different. There, the destruction of the water supply had no bearing on Clyde's death, and it wouldn't have mattered if Bob had sabotaged it, either. Here, the lack of water killed Clyde.
If we agree with this reasoning concerning the desert scenario, it should hold for the stabbing/shooting scenario, even if that one is much more graphic. Alan dealt the first blow, a mortal stab wound in the kidney. Because the wound will "guarantee death by blood loss," how can anything that follows truly be called murder? Bob's gunshot, even it hastens the victim's death in any way, is merely an additional factor leading up to a presumably inevitable outcome. Alan is the one guilty of murder. Bob is guilty of attempted murder.
L_J wrote:
and i'd like to say that how clyde died is of vital importance, not just the fact that he died. and it's been pointed out already, but alan did try to poison clyde to kill him, but did not mean to kill him by dehydration. he accidentally killed him. this situation would not fulfill lynx's mentioned "actus reus" and "mens rea", if you look at it as two separate events: 1, alan tried to poison clyde and failed, and 2, alan unknowingly destroyed clyde's water supply, causing him to die from dehydration.
If I'm understanding "Actus reus" correctly (and for all I know, I'm NOT), I don't see that the disconnect between how Alan intended to kill Clyde and how Clyde actually died really matters. Lynx asserts that Alan failed to fulfill "Actus reus" because, in Lynx's own words, "[r]egardless of whether A acted or not, C would have died because of B's actions."
However, the fact of the matter is that, as FerdieLance pointed out, the reverse is also the case: regardless of whether B acted or not, C would have died because of A's actions.
Therefore, in my opinion, culpability is determined by order of events. Alan poisoned Clyde's water supply FIRST. Even though Clyde did not die of poisoning, there was, presumably, overlooking some real-world variables for the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, no chance that Clyde would live after Alan poisoned the water. Therefore, Alan does fulfill "Actus reus" because, as far as we know, Alan is fully aware that his actions are depriving Clyde of his sole source of water. As far as I can tell, Clyde does not have to die of poisoning for Alan to fulfill "Mens rea." All that matters is that Alan acted with deliberate intent to kill Clyde, and that (according to the previous reasoning regarding "Actus reus") Clyde died as a result of Alan's actions. In this scenario, I would not say Alan "accidentally" killed Clyde just because Clyde died in a manner that Alan did not intend.
L_J wrote:
i suppose i would charge alan of attempted murder and accidental (i know there's some legal term for that) murder. and bob for premeditated murder as well.
I believe the proper term is manslaughter, but as I explained above, I still say Alan is guilty of murder and Bob guilty of attempted murder.
L_J wrote:
and to argue my point for bob's murder: after bob dumped out the poison, clyde could have lived, he was not a dead man.
If you're saying that Clyde would definitely have noticed that his canteen was empty if Bob hadn't filled it with sand (and therefore never would have gone on his fatal side-trip), I agree completely. However, I don't think this possible outcome is provided for within the scenario. Bob did not and never intended to do anything of the sort. It is treated as inevitable that Bob replaces the water with sand. By dint of this very assumption, I don't consider him responsible for Clyde's death because Alan had ALREADY acted to ultimately ensure Clyde's death. That's the real problem, considering this problem as a hypothetical scenario with absolute assumptions and conditions is COMPLETELY different from considering it in real life.
Totally not my sig...
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
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
If I'm understanding "Actus reus" correctly (and for all I know, I'm NOT), I don't see that the disconnect between how Alan intended to kill Clyde and how Clyde actually died really matters. Lynx asserts that Alan failed to fulfill "Actus reus" because, in Lynx's own words, "[r]egardless of whether A acted or not, C would have died because of B's actions."
However, the fact of the matter is that, as FerdieLance pointed out, the reverse is also the case: regardless of whether B acted or not, C would have died because of A's actions.
Therefore, in my opinion, culpability is determined by order of events. Alan poisoned Clyde's water supply FIRST. Even though Clyde did not die of poisoning, there was, presumably, overlooking some real-world variables for the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, no chance that Clyde would live after Alan poisoned the water. Therefore, Alan does fulfill "Actus reus" because, as far as we know, Alan is fully aware that his actions are depriving Clyde of his sole source of water. As far as I can tell, Clyde does not have to die of poisoning for Alan to fulfill "Mens rea." All that matters is that Alan acted with deliberate intent to kill Clyde, and that (according to the previous reasoning regarding "Actus reus") Clyde died as a result of Alan's actions. In this scenario, I would not say Alan "accidentally" killed Clyde just because Clyde died in a manner that Alan did not intend.
However, the fact of the matter is that, as FerdieLance pointed out, the reverse is also the case: regardless of whether B acted or not, C would have died because of A's actions.
Therefore, in my opinion, culpability is determined by order of events. Alan poisoned Clyde's water supply FIRST. Even though Clyde did not die of poisoning, there was, presumably, overlooking some real-world variables for the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, no chance that Clyde would live after Alan poisoned the water. Therefore, Alan does fulfill "Actus reus" because, as far as we know, Alan is fully aware that his actions are depriving Clyde of his sole source of water. As far as I can tell, Clyde does not have to die of poisoning for Alan to fulfill "Mens rea." All that matters is that Alan acted with deliberate intent to kill Clyde, and that (according to the previous reasoning regarding "Actus reus") Clyde died as a result of Alan's actions. In this scenario, I would not say Alan "accidentally" killed Clyde just because Clyde died in a manner that Alan did not intend.
i can't really say anything if you yourself think that's murder but that brings up my second point:
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
L_J wrote:
and to argue my point for bob's murder: after bob dumped out the poison, clyde could have lived, he was not a dead man.
If you're saying that Clyde would definitely have noticed that his canteen was empty if Bob hadn't filled it with sand (and therefore never would have gone on his fatal side-trip), I agree completely. However, I don't think this possible outcome is provided for within the scenario. Bob did not and never intended to do anything of the sort. It is treated as inevitable that Bob replaces the water with sand. By dint of this very assumption, I don't consider him responsible for Clyde's death because Alan had ALREADY acted to ultimately ensure Clyde's death. That's the real problem, considering this problem as a hypothetical scenario with absolute assumptions and conditions is COMPLETELY different from considering it in real life.
it's not whether or not bob puts the sand in the canteen, it's the decisive moment after he pours the sand out. at that point, clyde is not a dead man, bob may give up or follow through, he decides if clyde will live or die. even we know bob will follow through, it's the existence of such a moment that matters.
i actually don't like to determine of culpability by order of events, or as one event as a whole. it makes much more sense to dissect each individual situation and put them together.
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
L_J wrote:
it's not whether or not bob puts the sand in the canteen, it's the decisive moment after he pours the [water?] out. at that point, clyde is not a dead man, bob may give up or follow through, he decides if clyde will live or die. even we know bob will follow through, it's the existence of such a moment that matters.
I understand completely, but I'm saying that I believe such a moment literally does not exist in the hypothetical scenario, because it's treated as inevitable that Bob will do what he did. This is what I was talking about, it's impossible to come to the exact same conclusions when thinking about this scenario as if it had occurred in real life as opposed to it being a highly contrived abstraction.
L_J wrote:
i actually don't like to determine of culpability by order of events, or as one event as a whole. it makes much more sense to dissect each individual situation and put them together.
Could you elaborate on this a little, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Why isn't determining culpability by order of events (or as one event as a whole) reasonable for this hypothetical scenario, and why would it be sensible to dissect each individual situation and put them together?
Totally not my sig...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 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