Can anyone get away with murder?

Remove all ads!

Can anyone get away with murder? I wouldn't have thought it was possible these days, what with all the forensics and the miracles of modern science.
Carbon dating, x-rays....is it worth the bother to murder any more?

 

It probably is. The problem with all those modern things is that they need a sample from you to compare with what they migth have found on the victim. The trick is to never ever get suspected. So if you go out and shoot a random person, not shoot as bullets can be traced. I am afraid you have to strangle or knife them.

Also poisoning can be done without leaving any trace. The reason most murderers get caught is that the crimes are done in anger and on the spur of the moment. When you dont really think or plan.

 

I think having these possibilities is one thing. The other thing is actually to care. When somebody gets killed and there are no special circumstances, which raise suspicion, why the fuss ? Those possibilities are all very expensive. If there's doubt, just let it slide, I guess, is the directive of the people, who actually have to look after the cost.

 

Shell, I'll take care of it. Give me an adress...

 

There are quite a few unsolved murdercases, so i guess if you make the right decisions, you can get away with it.

Why ? Someone giving you a hard time ?

 

The forensic evidence does play a crucial role, but the expert witness who describes that evidence is vital. Most lawyers choose dimwitted jurors so that their expert witnesses can seem more authoritive.

Speaking of which...I have jury duty tomorrow. I'm not sure if its criminal or not, but I will find out tomorrow if I am chosen. I kind of hope they do choose me because I am bored and deciding someones fate might prove interesting.

 

Well, that's certainly not true. I agree that an expert can be crucial however whether it be criminal or civil.

 

Sure you can do it... you just need to do it from afar.

A missile for example. You just fire it miles away and how'll anyone know it was you? There's just one little, insignificant problem... where the heck will you get a missile???

Or make a tremendous thing like Bin Laden and then you're even more safe. Shoot Bush in the head and run over to Laden... you'll be rich(lots of gifts for sure) and you'll do a world a favour

Easiest way is to make a time travel back to stome age carrying a rocket launcher in your hand.


Lots of ways anyway

 

Well, technically, you can get away with it if you're a legal executioner, or are serving the military. Although killing something in the latter case may not necessarily constitute "murder", however you perceive that word.

 

Lawyers also choose over-weight women for death penalty cases because they tend to show less mercy.

 

With a good (read: overpriced, amoral) lawyer, anyone can get off. $ and connections do amazing things. Sickening, but true.

 

OJ Simpson got away with murder. All you really need is a good lawyer, a lot of cash, and no eye witness.

 

I've been thinking about this since I saw it; it really depresses me that this is the perception I think.

 

Pretty much what dmc said except:

I admitedly don't consider criminal law to be my strongest point but I am fairly certain that in most states you are not required to withdraw if you know that your client is guilty - if he confessed to you the attorney for example. What you aren't allowed to do is you aren't allowed to get up and say 'my client didn't do it' and you aren't allowed to put your client on the stand if you know or have reason to know that he will lie on the stand. You are allowed to defend your client by forcing the prosecutor to do her job - the importance of which is underscored by the rest of your post I think. So, you aren't allowed to say 'she didn't do it' if you know she did but you are allowed to say 'the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof so you must find not guilty.'

Of the above I'm pretty confident. Here is what I'm not certain of but feel pretty sure about - in many states you are not even allowed to withdraw from representing a client just because you know she is guilty. If the client agrees then you may, sometimes, even then courts have been known from time to time to still force representation. If the client doesn't want you to withdraw then it may be difficult to withdraw even if you know your client is guilty. If you are confident that your client will lie on the stand and your client is insisting on taking the stand as is her right then you start to be in a position where you might be able to withdraw but even then it'll be tricky.

For non-lawyers, the reason for all this is the law wants to make it particularly difficult for an attorney to abandon a criminal client if things start to go poorly.

I think people underestimate the sense of duty a typical attorney feels toward her client anyways - even if they can't stand that client personally. Like dmc said, this sense of duty stems from a belief in a system.

 

I'm sorry I came across as a lawyer basher -- I'm not. But it seems to me that if you can afford a high priced lawyer, you can get off. If you cannot afford such a lawyer, you go to jail. That seems to me like purchased justice. And I guess that that's not the lawyer's fault, though -- the high priced one just does his job to the best of his ability, and the less skilled ones try their best too. It kind of turns into a paradox for me -- I believe in free market and being able to use your money the way you want, but I don't like the appearance of purchased justice.

I also dislike loopholes -- just because a cop made some MINOR mistake, we let a killer or rapist off scot free? That disturbs me.

 

I believe this to be largely a misperception. The prosecution wins the overwhelming majority of all trials. An even greater number are settled. For example, I did a quick search for 'prosecution statistics' and clicked on the first hit that came up. In that district: 81 prosecutions within the time frame studied and 81 convictions. Highly competent and highly paid criminal defense lawyers commonly lose, indeed, they usually do. Even the most highly publicized defense counsel like the Barry Schecks of the world usually lose.

There are those rare instances though where there is a spectacular victory for the defense, or perhaps more appropriately a spectacular failure for the prosecution, and those exceedingly rare instances serve to shape the publics perception in this day of 24 hour court TV and television news.

The real problem isn't someone being able to pay for an expensive attorney and 'getting off' when they shouldn't have. The real problem is the poor representation that can occur for those without the money. The rich are more likely to have a competent defense but still odds are will be convicted. The poor however are less likely to have that competent defense. There are some true crusaders out there who devote their lives to defending the poor -- they sacrafice a great deal of monetary wealth out of a devotion to justice. They are never in the news.

I also think the perception of people getting off because of 'loopholes' is largely a function of TV drama. It isn't clear what a loophole is but there is usually a pretty good reason for it and it is exceedingly rare for it to be used.

 

There were a couple Ivy League guys who did some random killings, convinced that they could get away with it. No motive, no contact, etc.

I don't remember the full story, but they are rotting behind bars now!

 

Fair enough, Laches -- maybe I watch too much TV. But is it also not true that the vast majority of people behind bars are poor? That strikes me as odd. Now, I have an explanation for that that'll really annoy the liberals out there, and I'm not even sure I buy it myself, but here it is -- poor people commit more crimes because they are more desperate -- rich people don't need to commit crimes to survive.

The other argument is that the rich can afford justice, while the poor cannot. I'm not sure i buy that one either, but it is revealing.

 

Depaara, that brings me to three things.

1. Hasn't the recently imploded bubble at the stock exchange led to the discovery of giantic frauds. Have the responsible people seen any bars yet ?

2. Money gives the privilege to chose where one lives. I think living in the wrong side of town hightens the risk to be victim of a crime and the risk to come into "bad company", which hightens the risk of committing a crime.

3. A lot of crimes have nothing to do with the money one person got. Like sexual abuse of children, murder out of jealousy, rape, murder out of greed (divorce is expensive, sometimes), drug abuse.

Question: The son of a senator, caught with cocaine. Jail ?