What evidence is there of self-defence? As mentioned earlier, the only way to raise that is by the accused testifying. Prosecutors don’t make decisions on whether to prosecute on the possibility that the accused won’t testify.
Convicted of murder, but open to leniency in sentencing both on account of his age at the time of the murder and his good behavior since.
His claim of self defense is conclusive evidence that he killed his friend. The only question is, under what circumstances? Absent any evidence other than his own word that it was self defense, I would generally be inclined to view that as something that every murderer would claim. So, given the paucity of facts, sounds like murder to me.
It is in at least two places (not the exact charge).
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html
I’m sure the perpetrator wouldn’t get charged with those offenses, though.
So no.
To accuse him of covering up a crime, by remaining silent, when he has a 5th Amendment right allowing his silence ? Interesting.
But the OP’s question wasn’t about what modern US legal statutes would provide, the question was:
And I’d like the person to be locked away forever. I don’t believe in an afterlife where justice is meted out, so I wish for people who commit serious crimes to suffer here.
If you’re killing someone for a toy at age 14 then you’re not getting to 35 with a spotless criminal record.
Even though he killed in sefl defence?
He claims that he killed him in self defense.
Right, Steophan should have included a “may have.”
The OP includes: The evidence doesn’t dispute either alternative.
What is it about the scenario in the OP that wants you to have it so the accused is locked away forever?
In the US, at least, the accused doesn’t have to prove anything. The prosecution has the burden of proving murder (or whatever charge they decide to bring) “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If the defense can raise reasonable doubt by simply claiming “self defense” in the opening argument, the defendant will walk.
The fact that a decent human being that deserves to be walking around in public would have at some time explained to the parents and the police why the killing was done in self defense instead of leaving them wondering and trying to solve it forever?
You said this:
so I wish for people who commit serious crimes to suffer here.
You made it seem like the serious crime was the killing.
What serious crime has been committed in not reporting a homicide at the age of 14 that may have been justifiable self-defense?
A claim of self-defense is, in many jurisdictions, an affirmative defense: the Defendant undertakes a burden to prove the facts and conditions supporting the claim of self-defense. You don’t get to say “self defense, prove me wrong!”.
[Emphasis added by me.]
This is going to differ depending on your jurisdiction, but at least in Texas, a defendant claiming the justification of homicide of self-defense must produce some evidence to support their claim. As self-defense (EDIT: in Texas, and in most places, AIUI. Which is surprising: I had always thought of self-defense as an affirmative defense, like gnoitall above, but it’s not the case.) is an ordinary defense, as distinguished from an affirmative defense, once the defendant meets that burden of production, the State bears the burden of persuasion and must then disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (In an affirmative defense, the defendant also bears the burden of persuasion, which is usually by a preponderance of the evidence standard.)
Anyway, the defendant must produce something. Mentioning self-defense in opening statement won’t cut it. As Northern Piper wrote, the defendant is likely going to have to testify in order to establish the elements of his self-defense claim. Absent that, the defendant has already admitted to committing a homicide. We can argue about which relevant mental state the defendant possessed when he committed the homicide, but it’s going to lead to him being guilty of some crime, be it murder 1, 2, manslaughter, whatever.
As to what I think the OP is getting at: are there some homicides that, pragmatically if not morally, I would ‘excuse’ after 21 years of the killer being a good citizen? Sure. We don’t have much evidence though in the hypo for us to see whether this is going to be one of those, however. And absent that, I don’t see why the passage of time should negate the horrible crime that killing another human being usually is.
The serious crime of making a set of parents spend 21 years wondering how and why their child died. The serious crime of allowing the police to spend many years of time and resources attempting to solve the killing. You may be willing to brush those off, I’m not. A person who lets things like go on until they are caught* is not a good person*. (I’m using “crime” in the sense of “violating what is good, decent, or moral”, not in the sense of “doing something with a legal statute against it.”)
Yeah, it’s so useful to have your own definition of “serious crime” in threads like this that you conveniently wait to share. That was very helpful, thanks.
Really? We’re not arguing over whether homicide is malum in se vs malum prohibitum, are we? Is it that hard to see that an unsolved homicide causes grief and distress for the deceased’s loved ones, and that admitting the crime at the time would spare them the worry over the next 21 years that their child’s killer is running around escaping punishment?
Is causing them such grief a crime in and of itself? I don’t think so, offhand—in addition there are 5th Amendment concerns as noted up-thread—but it’s still surely a bad thing to do?
Re-reading this, I’m curious about the OP: why should society not punish this guy?
Once again I point out the premise set out by the OP:
It is true that his statement complicates things. It is literally the only evidence against him. If only he had kept his mouth shut.
He can try to get the statement suppressed, but that would be unlikely. A really good lawyer could get around it in court though, claiming confusion on the part of client and coercion on the part of the detective.