Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?
Posts
Why on earth would we want to alter the conception of the crime itself to insert an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success when doing so would offer a whole bunch of criminals a new line of defense, spurious thought it generally would be? Especially when the law still functions anyway.
Basically, sure it sounds like you can fit the hypothetical into the definition of the law. But so what?
That's not what's going on at all. What people are saying is that he isn't guilty of attempted murder.
You can be guilty of atempting to bomb a building, even if the feds gave you a set of plans that would never detonate. You can't be guilty of attempting to kill the tooth fairy because there is no tooth fairy, no matter how hell bent on it you are.
This guys situation only has two end. If he believes he summoned up whatever it is and it can hurt people, he's criminally insane and should get a padded room. If he doesn't then he's just another jackass.
You're the one doing this, not me.
Attempted murder requires that the criminal actually do something physically substantial to the victim. Just preparing or having a plot to hurt someone isn't enough.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
The bold part is false.
As the case where the woman who thought she poisoned her husband with arsenic, only later turning out to be sugar shows, it's the combination of murderous intent coupled with a murderous act that the perpetrator believes feasible that creates an attempted murder situation.
And never once have I argued that this man is legally fit to stand trial, only that an attempted murder charge is the most logical means to remand him to psychiatric care.
1) I believe that by dialing this number on my cell phone, I will set off a bomb in the basement of my office building. I dial the number, but nothing happens because the explosives weren't real.
2) I believe that by writing his name in my own blood I can summon Aezthoth to tear your heart out of your chest and kill you. I cut myself and write his name, but nothing happens because Azethoth isn't real.
Where's the distinction that makes one of these attempted murder and the other not? It's not intent, that's there in both. Action is taken in both to act on that intent - I do what it I believe will result in the death of another. The only distinguishing feature that I can see between these statements is the plausability of the beliefs - neither was ever actually going to kill anyone, but because you can rationally say that the action of attempting to summon the demon wasn't actually going to do anything it somehow just doesn't count? I can't think of a reason one of these would be attempted murder and the other wouldn't except on those grounds, which is pretty clearly using an outside evaluation of the rationality or reasonably perceived probability of success as a criteria for having committed the crime.
Because there is a thing as arsenic and it can kill you. There are no demons.
It's not "acting on magical beliefs", it's acting on what the man believes is real.
I get the feeling that we're arguing more over what it means to be found not guilty due to insanity than about the actions/crime itself.
And what he believes is real is magic.
And then we have to act on what every person who believes in magic is real.
And then we have just made the whole country really goddamn fucked up.
--
JJ: The sheer number of people we would have to lock up, either in prison or in the mental word, if we took what people believe in seriously would cause civil war. It's not practicable.
She attempted murder because she tried to poison her husband, and failed. A reasonable person recognizes that arsenic is a deadly poison. A reasonable person would not recognize that demons exist, and can be summoned to harm churchgoers.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
Seriously I don't think I've heard of even one confirmed case that would actually fall within this hypothetical. Certainly not millions.
People pray for rapture pretty much all over the place, and believe that they can speed up the process in some cases.
More or less conspiracy to commit genocide.
Would you like to lead the posse to start locking down those churches?
And I've never met anyone who did believe that. Nor have I ever heard of anyone who did.
We should all be so lucky.
criminals?
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
Seriously, outside of hypotheticals like the direct comparison I posted it's not an issue. And, in that impossible hypothetical, the law functions just fine as far as I can tell.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
As opposed to a clear-cut and binding example of common law in action.
Actually, this is your assertion that you now must support with reasoning.
Or to put it another way, the burden of proof is on you to show why this demonstrates legal guilt.
Crime does not exist in the eye of the beholder. Or the eye of the criminal. Crime means breaking the law.
There are laws against attempting to kill people by doing things that would kill them. "Poisoning someone with arsenic" is such a thing. "Building a bomb and blowing it up" is such a thing.
A person doesn't have to be successful at doing something that would kill a person to be guilty of attempted murder. A person could, for example, make a mistake in building the bomb, or mistake the poison for sugar, or mistake the FBI agent for a bomb-seller.
However, a person has to at least try to do something that would kill a person to be found guilty.
The alleged criminal in question did not "make a mistake." He wasn't trying to do something that would kill a person if he was not mistaken. He therefore does not constitute anywhere near the degree of harm to society as a "tricked" bomb-builder or poisoner. It makes no sense to punish him for the same crime.
Rigorous Scholarship
That doesn't quite work, does it? I mean, I assume you mean that if a person fires a gun at a shooting range, they're not committing a crime. If they fire it with the intent to kill someone, they are.
But they wouldn't be committing a crime if they fired a gun at the ground with the intent to kill someone in China. They'd just be crazy. We have a system in place for figuring out whether or not you're crazy before we prosecute or sentence you, it's not just action+intent=crime.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
I can't think of anything stronger than harassment, and that's only if the guy claims to have been making a practical joke. Otherwise, if he believes he can actually summon demons to kill people, as long as he isn't going past that point he's well within his religious freedoms to do so.
Shooting a gun into the ground to kill someone in China might meet the technical requirements of attempted murder (though there may be defenses, such as the concept of impossibility), but it's not something you are likely to get charged for.
And as for the insanity defense- being legally insane basically means you did not have the requisite mens rea for the requirements of a crime to be fulfilled.
If a prosecutor shows that the requisite mental state and act were present, then he's met his burden of proof in showing that a crime occurred. After that, various legal defenses can come into play to either justify the crime (such as self defense) or to excuse the perpetrator from criminal liability (such as the insanity defense).
Rigorous Scholarship
Even if we accept that this person satisfies mens rea (which I do not), mens rea + performing an act that would never harm anyone even if it "works" is not grounds for prosecution. Comparing this to a bomb makes no sense because, even if a bomber fails or is mistaken in assembling a bomb, he is still performing an act that would, or could, kill people.
why do you guys keep saying this?
if anything, it's conspiracy (with a magical being) to cause severe emotional suffering.
which is not attempted murder you fuckwits.
stop with the attempted murder shit, will you?
if anything, it's conspiracy. and it wasn't murder, it was conspiracy to cause emotional suffering.
if you want to actually discuss this stupidity seriously, then do so.
The only legal issue in serious consideration here is the question of free speech and whether this guy should be charged with some sort of crime based on the harassing/offensive content of what he said and did.
He's an idiotic douche bag, but I support his right to be one, even if his stupid little ritual offended someone. Of course, if he goes back to the church, they have every right to have him arrested for trespassing.
Rigorous Scholarship
personally, i think harassment is a stretch, but possible if they really, really want to get this guy.
and i agree with you about the stupidity, but there are still two guys in here who think "attempted murder" is the right charge. i think they simply haven't really put enough thought into their position.
let's see if they bother to come back with some kind of explanation for why it should be attempted fucking murder as opposed to conspiracy to cause emotional suffering (i.e., harassment).
i'm thinking they'll either:
1) opine on the metaphysical nature of demons (i.e., "the demon equates to a weapon, not a being, so it's like using a bomb, not like talking to a co-conspirator), which means they have gone off the cliff and are now permanent residents of stupid land; or
2) concede that the best charge they could get is harassment and not attempted murder and we can all go home happy.
i don't really see a third option for them, but maybe i'm missing something.
Also, this particular douchenozzle is indeed a douchenozzle. More to come at 11.
*not my testicle, but I probably can find one somewhere.
itt someone acts dumb for pages and pages, complains about it