Close Topic Options

Should He Die?

Consider the following. A man goes on a fishing trip with another man near a State line where the State line is the river where they will be fishing. In State 'A' there is no death penalty for murder and in State 'B' which is on the other side of the River the death penalty stands for murder. Now back to the fishing trip. The two men leave from 'A' and go on the river... in the middle of the river one man murders the other while fighting. During the episode the boat drifts and ends up on the side of 'B'. The killer realizing this jumps out on the shore of 'B' and pushes the boat into the river and rows back to 'A' where he digs a hole and buries the man. Later the man is caught after a couple eyewitnesses tell the whole event. Trial needs to start. Now consider the following questions:

1. Where should the trial be held... in State 'A' or 'B'?
2. Where did the murder take place? State 'A' or 'B'

Keep in mind that your choice could mean the difference between life or death.

Die Should

This is a very tough question. I cant speak about what the law currently states about this, but I can give my opinion. If multiple states are involved in a crime, I feel the defendant should be tried in the state that carries the maximum penalty for the crime permitted. In this case, where state lines are so close, the killer should be tried in State B where murder carries the death penalty. Same for a person who commits crimes across many states. Try him in the state with the harshest penalty. This is my humble opinion about the matter.

Should He Die? History & Civil Business Politics

Murder took place in both states, as it occurred in the middle of the river. That means the trial can be held in both states (not just either). In essence, he broke the laws of two jurisdictions.

That's not double jeopardy. So let the state try him who wants him. It would probably be the state where the body was found, since they have more of a dog in the fight. But, the other death penalty state might want it's shot at the fellow, just for grins.

Die Should

Does saying "middle" of the river really mean it was in the middle or close to it, or within the area. Sheer observation from the sides cannot determine that, not so> Therefore who is to say?

Die Should

Well, whatever the facts are, they are. If it was on one side or the other, then that state's laws govern. If no one can tell, then that's a fact issue to be determined at trial. Since this isn't an actual case, it's good to have the facts down pat, lest we bicker about facts as opposed to the correct outcome.

But, short answer:

If we DON'T know which state it was in then:

* Pretrial determines whether a prosecuting state has jurisdiction.
* Result that in only one state: That state has jurisdiction (though the grave state might also assuming it did not have original jurisdiction)
* Result that both states had jurisdiction: Slug fest for who tries him first. Assuming one state gets a conviction, the other state would likely walk away - unless the second state is the death penalty state in which case it MIGHT say, nah, we want him too!

Long as we're still figuring out some of the facts, the guy should push the boat to the non-death penalty state and then off him. Much better. That means it won't be here in Texas...

Rather off topic, but... True story. Don't remember the expert's name, but a death penalty expert during a debate rebutted the opponent's position that the death penalty was not a deterrent. The pro-death penalty expert put forward a real life example in which there were some convict being transported over state lines, through Texas. There was an instance when they were getting ready to kill a fellow prisoner. At the time, one of the prisoners exclaimed that they had to wait until they crossed the border, since they were still in Texas and it wasn't afraid to execute prisoners. Not sure how he heard about that story, but there it is. Kinds of makes me smile when I remember that discussion.

Edited: tortdog on 22nd Aug, 2007 - 8:34pm

Should He Die?

What state are both men from because the family of the dead man will most likely press charges. Pluss the side the body is found on will probably have more clout on getting the case. I am personally against the death penalty so my judgement is very one sided, sorry I wish I was able to see both sides but I'd say the side without the death penalty should get him.

Should Die

If two states are at odds over who has jurisdiction over the killer then would a Federal Court need to intervene to determine the issue?

Should Die Politics Business Civil & History

Not sure that's even relevant. Makes sense if someone has political clout, but usually the authorities could care less if someone wants to "press charges" when it's murder. You can't stop the state from prosecuting just because you think the victim (your relative) had it coming. The state must protect the victim, regardless of whether someone likes him or not.

Why?

No. But the U.S. Supreme Court might, which does have jurisdiction over state disputes (other federal courts have no jurisdiction over a controversy between two states). But this wouldn't go there, since this isn't a fight over who gets him. It's only a fight by the state against the defendant on whether IT has jurisdiction. The STATE is fighting the DEFENDANT, not the other state.

The only state-state dispute would be who gets to try him first. And, honestly, I've never heard that such a dispute ever has really taken place. The states just figure it out and get it done. Most states would be HAPPY to see the case go away, since it costs money to try the fellow and then put him in prison (or execute him).