HomoUniversalis
Welcome to the court. I, HomoUniversalis, will act as judge here, and I will look upon the case presented by the District Attorney (The role of the DA will be played by any person who believes (s)he has found sufficient clues), and the case by the Defense (The accused, or anyone (s)he wants to use as a representative) and evaluate, based on the case evidence and on the Law (as described below in this post) whether or not the accused is in fact guilty of the crime that the DA has presented as such.
I would like to ask all attendants to the legal process to be civil and nice in the process, and take in consideration that the court needs considerable time to deliberate on such difficult matters.
I will present, in this post, a simplified version of law, derived from Dutch Canon Law, as I have little knowledge of international and US Law. However, because it is so simplified, the differences will be nihil, if any.
First and most important, the accused (he whom the DA has pointed out as being guilty of a crime) is not guilty until proven otherwise. Thus, every crime that the DA accuses the accused of, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and based thoroughly on facts. I will be the final judge on whether or not a crime has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Once a verdict has been made, and has been presented as such, I expect all to respect such a verdict.
Secondly, it will not be as easy and stating 'murder', and posting some quotes. Rather, it is the task of the DA to select the 'crime' that he feels is best fitted to the evidence, et cetera.
Now, I want to make a clear distinction between 'assault' and 'murder'.
Both, to simplify things, come in three degrees.
Assault
1st degree:
Accidental Death (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim).
2nd degree:
Assault resulting in death (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused assaulted the victim with the intent of physically harming the victim).
3rd degree
Assault resulting in death with prior intent (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused assaulted the victim with the intent of physically harming the victim, and that he had time to overthink his actions and considerate what he was doing).
Murder
1st degree:
Murder (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused attacked the victim with the intent of ending the victim's life).
2nd degree:
Murder (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused attacked the victim with the intent of ending the victim's life. He must also prove that the accused before, during or after the murder commited other illegal acts, or attempted to hide the murder).
3rd degree
Murder (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused attacked the victim with the intent of ending the victim's lifeand that he had time to overthink his actions and considerate what he was doing).
It will thus be the task of the DA to deliver the case to the judge (me) and make sure that I am completely informed in the information that the DA feels is relevant to the case.
The task of the defense will be the representation of the victim, and they will either try to disprove the case of the DA, or find grounds on which the case can be acquited or reduced. Please note, however, that the chance of the following resulting in acquittance is small. Naturally, all these will have to be proven by the defense.
Force majeure
He who is forced into commiting a crime by force majeure (overwhelming acts) will not be found guilty.
Insanity
He who is, due to low development or mental illness of his mind will not be found guilty.
Self-Defense
He who acts because he is forced into a situation in the defence of himself or in that of another will not be found guilty.
Self-Defense Excess
He who acts with excessive violence, following a serious emotional disturbance, in a situation of Self-Defense, will not be found guilty.
I would like to ask all attendants to the legal process to be civil and nice in the process, and take in consideration that the court needs considerable time to deliberate on such difficult matters.
I will present, in this post, a simplified version of law, derived from Dutch Canon Law, as I have little knowledge of international and US Law. However, because it is so simplified, the differences will be nihil, if any.
First and most important, the accused (he whom the DA has pointed out as being guilty of a crime) is not guilty until proven otherwise. Thus, every crime that the DA accuses the accused of, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and based thoroughly on facts. I will be the final judge on whether or not a crime has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Once a verdict has been made, and has been presented as such, I expect all to respect such a verdict.
Secondly, it will not be as easy and stating 'murder', and posting some quotes. Rather, it is the task of the DA to select the 'crime' that he feels is best fitted to the evidence, et cetera.
Now, I want to make a clear distinction between 'assault' and 'murder'.
Both, to simplify things, come in three degrees.
Assault
1st degree:
Accidental Death (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim).
2nd degree:
Assault resulting in death (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused assaulted the victim with the intent of physically harming the victim).
3rd degree
Assault resulting in death with prior intent (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused assaulted the victim with the intent of physically harming the victim, and that he had time to overthink his actions and considerate what he was doing).
Murder
1st degree:
Murder (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused attacked the victim with the intent of ending the victim's life).
2nd degree:
Murder (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused attacked the victim with the intent of ending the victim's life. He must also prove that the accused before, during or after the murder commited other illegal acts, or attempted to hide the murder).
3rd degree
Murder (The DA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was indeed at the same place as the victim at the time the crime was commited. He must also prove that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim. He must also prove that the accused attacked the victim with the intent of ending the victim's lifeand that he had time to overthink his actions and considerate what he was doing).
It will thus be the task of the DA to deliver the case to the judge (me) and make sure that I am completely informed in the information that the DA feels is relevant to the case.
The task of the defense will be the representation of the victim, and they will either try to disprove the case of the DA, or find grounds on which the case can be acquited or reduced. Please note, however, that the chance of the following resulting in acquittance is small. Naturally, all these will have to be proven by the defense.
Force majeure
He who is forced into commiting a crime by force majeure (overwhelming acts) will not be found guilty.
Insanity
He who is, due to low development or mental illness of his mind will not be found guilty.
Self-Defense
He who acts because he is forced into a situation in the defence of himself or in that of another will not be found guilty.
Self-Defense Excess
He who acts with excessive violence, following a serious emotional disturbance, in a situation of Self-Defense, will not be found guilty.