Well I was just wondering if there were any serious crimes that someone got away with because of a legal loophole or technicality. I heard of someone who was driving a tractor while under the influence of alcohol on a farm and he reversed over a 9 year old boy and killed him but he couldn’t be prosecuted because it was on a private road and the drink-driving laws only apply to public roads. Also, there was a man called John Downey who was suspected of being involved in the 1982 IRA Hyde Park bombing in which 4 soldiers were killed but he got away with it because he had got a letter and there was a mistake made by the police force in Northern Ireland it said the police force in Northern Ireland was not aware of any interest in him by any police force in the UK also which led to the letter being sent and it said he wasn’t wanted for questioning in relation to any crimes he may have committed before 1998 but in fact he was wanted for questioning by one police force but the judge ruled that he couldn’t be prosecuted because it would be “an abuse of process”.
Any other examples
Also any examples of where someone was probably guilty but got away with things because of something well like this
What is the most serious crime anyone ever got away with because of a legal loophole or technicality
I wonder if your stories are apocryphal, for one thing. The tractor story sounds like an odd precedent to set, or well, maybe not. I guess if you cause a death, on private land, and no one hears about it quickly … you don’t have to be *** arrested***. But you can still be charged, later, and then maybe not prosecuted, for some reason or another.
Urm. Maybe you want to simplify this bit, and see what went wrong. It could be that he was wanted, and wasn’t charged, before the statute of limitations ran out. Or something.
OK. I have one, Richard M. Nixon did … something. Something worth resigning from being president. Something he could have been impeached for – that is tried by congress. If he’d had lost, there could very well have been a serious penalty. Having left the presidency, he could have been tried by some municipality, and punished for those crimes. However, the next US president, Ford, decided, “In view of the good he’s done – presumably, opening relations with China, beefing up the EPA – we’re just going to pardon him of anything he might have done, or known was happening.”
I don’t think it gets much bigger, and yet more murkier as to what was wrong, than that.
Nope, that didn’t happen. At least not to the extent of pardoning him for state crimes. The president can only pardon someone for federal crimes. If he’d violated a state law, he could still have been prosecuted.
Cite for the first thing about the drink-driving incident and the tractor here
Cite for the second thing about the letters here
Man who actually received the letter
Just a few examples
Ever is a long time. Royalty used to be above the law for the most part. Despotic heads of state. Do you want narrower parameters than that?
I don’t know anything about British law, but the Daily Mail has always struck me as the sort of publication that would make a big deal about the inability to prosecute someone for driving drunk while on private property while failing to mention that the person still could be prosecuted for some other offense based on recklessness or negligence. And in fact, it appears that he did face prison time, although not for driving drunk
You’ve also got to be careful to define “technicality”. A very great many people have escaped punishment for crimes, for instance, on the technicality that they didn’t do it, and a great many more on the technicality that the state didn’t prove they did it.
How about the incarceration of all Japanese-Americans and the confiscation of heir property, during WWII? Whoever did that seems to have gotten off on a technicality. Executive privilege, or something.
As for the tractor incident, in the USA, I don’t think any state’s motor vehicle code applies to any vehicles operated on the owner’s personal private property. So it is certainly true that drunk driving would not be applicable in a cornfield in the back 40, although there are all kinds of other laws in place that would cover the circumstances of a death, accidental or otherwise, with or without involving a tractor, even in your bedroom. You can’t just kill people on your farm, like Ed Gein, without breaking some kind of a law. But in this case, after an incompetent prosecutor failed to convict for drunk driving, there might have been a double jeopardy loophole.
Traffic laws do not apply to your personal private property, like your driveway or cow pasture, but they do apply to private property designated as public access, like a WalMart parking lot.
How about Adolph Hitler? He escaped legal action for all of his many crimes by virtue of dying at his own hand before he was caught.
The government, any government, will win this thread. Chemical warfare, nukes, torture, genocide, slavery, human experimentation, etc. And all of that on a wholesale, massive basis that private individuals could never possibly accomplish by themselves. And, due to having a monopoly of power, they almost always get off scott free.
Also, if a warrant is required for a search and the police do a search without a warrant, that’s not a “technicality” it’s the law.
O.J. Simpson comes to mind.
Yes, you always see that on cop shows. They find a bunch of murder victims in a suspect’s house, arrest and charge the suspect but the court throws the case out because the search warrant was invalid for some reason. Exit sneering murderer past seething cops.
Seriously could this really happen? Has it happened? A serial murder suspect, in whose house dead bodies were found, even perhaps a torture chamber in the basement, walking free from court because the only physical evidence against him was in his house and that’s been deemed fruit of the poisonous tree?
Oliver Cromwell ordered the execution of the King of England and got away with it until after he died. Does having one’s corpse brutalized count as “getting away with it”?
It’s been discussed/debated in SD and elsewhere that the difference between “[damn no-good] loophole” or “[d.n.g.] technicality” are a matter of cursing something that doesn’t exist: what is being discussed is not a loophole, but the law, period.
Having said that, I’ll nominate a few German citizens, some gone to their reward and some elderly, who served in the German military in the early years of WWII.
I’ve read a few cases where the person was certainly guilty, but had fled to another jurisdiction, and the authorities flat-out refused to extradite.
I suppose that could be considered a “technicality.”
Governor Lepage has gotten away with a lot of death threats during his time in office.
Here in Canada we have the infamous Karla Homolka. I’m not going to recapitulate the details because it still makes my blood boil every time I think of it, but because of a deal she made with prosecutors in order to get a conviction for her husband, she was give (on hindsight) a sweet deal under the assumption she was a victim of a extraordinarily abusive marriage. When further evidence emerged, it became clear that she was just as guilty as he was, but it was too late to rescind the offer and after a relatively short sentence (for what she did) she is now a free woman.
The legal technicality that he was found not guilty?
:mad:
Which reminded me of Mel Ignatow.