Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (143294)	10/16/2005 5:28:24 PM
From: captain_midnite	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794065

Come up with an answer on this one. Thirty-Two Years to Die = Murder? The victim died. New facts, New law. New jeopardy. Double jeopardy prohibits subsequent "legal danger" from the same act. Herein we have different facts, apart from the original prosecution. It's not a greater offense violation (murder charge after an assault prosecution), as the victim is dead. It's not a lesser offense violation (aggravated assault after a manslaughter/murder prosecution), this is a new crime. There is new facts (victim died), and new law (criminal homicide statutes). There is a distinct element in one crime that is not in the other: dead victim. Contrast that to being prosecuted for aggravated assault, and a subsequent prosecution for simple assault. Or, specific to this example, tried for intentional murder, then tried again on manslaughter charges. It's a strange fact pattern, but not unheard of. This is simply a distinct and separate crime, assault then, it's murder now.