Sounds like there’s a huge potential to punish people who had nothing to do with the crime. You get a scumbag relatives who leaves you X dollars and X times 10 (or x100, or x1000) in debt, which means innocent relative is left destitute for the rest of his/her life through no fault of his/her own. Oh, yeah, that’s fair :rolleyes:
Also, if such a person is convicted wouldn’t all their assets be seized anyway before they die? (Too bad for their family, that they’d wind up living a cardboard box but hey, shouldn’t be related to criminals, right?).
I could see the estate being seized, but not passing on debt to innocent parties.
Well thats a good question. Sometimes they do come forward. Maybe more would accept amnesty and come forward if they were not so afraid of prison.
Just think how many people get off when the state scews up a case or where the evidence is weak and most times evidence is pretty darn weak. One never knows how a jury will go.
I think some murders were done on an impulse where they were not thinking clearly and some sick instinct took over.
I know of a case here in our town where 20 years earlier a girl had been kidnapped right off the street and killed. Her killer was never found but they did have a suspect. Twenty years later a detective took over the case and went to pay a visit to the suspect who had long moved away. He walked up to that man and the man basically broke down in front of him and said “I knew someday this day would come” and confessed.
My idea of amnesty is basically for what I call “cold cases”. Cases where the cops and family know darn well somebody did it but dont have the evidence to convict for the crime. Cases that might be 10 years old or more and the family, police, and the community just want answers and closure.
Unfortunately the police have previous for applying undue pressure on people, and innocent people have been convicted. Just because someone is suspected of a crime doesn’t mean they are guilty.
Or are you asking after a broadcast amnesty, as in, “We swear to not prosecute for this killing; would the killer please come forward?” That might have merit as a trap if there were similar killings.
And, of course, in America, someone can be sued despite a verdict (q.v. OJ Simpson), so someone admitting guilt could then be sued.
If they don’t have the evidence, then they don’t know who did the crime, do they? Giving any legal weight to gut feelings and the need to pin the blame on someone in the absence of evidence seems like a bad idea.
Also, as nelliebly pointed out, there’s not much incentive for someone to go along with the amnesty program.
Well in the case I mentioned the suspect was age 19 and the girl 14 and he had picked her up and was the last person seen with her. He claimed he dropped her off and went home to bed alone. The police, when they went to search his car, well his car had had mysteriously caught on fire soon after the disappearance and was totally torched burning any possibility of finding any clues or evidence of the crime.
Exactly. If I’ve done the crime, and the police don’t have enough evidence to convict me, why the fuck would I confess? Even if the police and prosecutors are offering 100% immunity, that doesn’t mean my neighbors will. Why would I risk being lynched or being the target of retributive violence by opening my mouth? I have nothing to gain, and everything to lose in that situation.
You’ve never actually been in prison, have you? I have been in prison, and I’ve lived on the street. The street isn’t good, but it still beats prison by a fucking mile.