From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:57:20 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:57:20 EDT
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > :it is a difficult concept to grasp , but no, crimes in the legal sense do
> > :not exist until someone is convicted. for example
> > No, it is not a difficult concept to grasp at all. What you appear to
> > consistently miss is that this is not a court and we're not existing
> > 'in the legal sense'.
> > This is the real world. Deal with it.
> Even in the not so real world of the law its not as hard as he makes it:
> "Crime- any act which the sovereign has deemed contrary to the public good:
> a wrong which the government has determined is injurious to the public and,
> hence, prosecutable in a criminal proceeding." Barrons Law dictionary,
> sorry left Blacks at the office
> Key there is that it says is prosecutable. It doesn't say it becomes a
> crime after it is prosecuted and a conviction had on it. That is just pure
When is an offence "prosecutable" can you convict a dead person? If person A
shoots person B and then shoots themselves, is the event "prosecutable"
person A commits an act is tired and acquitted. New evidence is discovered but
person A cannot be tired again because fo the constitutional barrier
Is the act "prosecutable"
The statement that an even was a crime may "relate back" from conviction to the
event, but until you get the conviction you cant make an unambiguous statement
about the event.
As I posted separately, the analysis of the presidential pardon paower shows
clealry the difference between the event and the crime.