Close Topic Options

Should He Die? - Page 2

What about if the killer hits the man (to kill, but fails) unconscious in the middle of the river, then goes over to 'A' where after realizing he is still alive kills him and then takes him over to 'B' and buries him?

Die Should

That one is easy. He murdered the man in B, since the blow was not what killed him. He could be charged with assault/battery by State A.

Should He Die? History & Civil Business Politics

Yes the second case is pretty clear State b would hold the trial.

The first case should be held in federal Court with federal law. I am unsure about what punishment for the crime would be though as I was unable to find any examples of such a case. I would hope it would be the stiffer of the two penalties though I doubt it given the bleeding hearts that would protest.

Page 2 Die Should

You mean in A right?

Tortdog says that federal court does not handle this?

Die Should

Yes. My sloppiness. Sorry about that. You stated he killed him in A. That he buried him in B makes no difference. The murder statute of A was violated, not B's.

What federal law is broken? There is no federal "murder" statute. States legislate the general laws, and there are few federal criminal laws. The federal government does not have a murder statute, a rape statute, a theft statute. What it DOES legislate are crimes against the federal government, like robbing a bank insured by the Federal Reserve, or crossing state lines in the commission of a crime (say, kidnapping).

But in this case, it's not a matter of crossing lines to commit a crime. You are carrying a body (he's already been murdered) from one state to another. So you might have violated a federal law on carrying evidence across state lines, but there would be no such thing as a federal murder violation.

Should He Die?

That is one area in the state I always find confusing. I was trying also to find out if the federal goverment could dictate what state the crime could be charged under. From what I can tell again it would come down to the two states battling it out.

Should Die - Page 2

The States have all powers of a sovereign government that were not specifically given by the U.S. Constitution to the Federal government. So states are legal entities of general jurisdiction. The Feds only have specific jurisdiction.

Many think that it's the Feds trumping the states. But that's not the way it is. That's only true where the STATES agreed to LET the Feds trump them. But in everything else, the states trump the Feds (because the Feds can't even hear the cases).

IF the states were in a battle over this, then it WOULD go to one court for a decision: the U.S. Supreme Court. That is the ONLY court that has jurisdiction to hear a dispute between two states. But since states never really care about this (they just want the guy to hang), then if it has ever occurred it is rare.

Where states DO get into disputes that go to the U.S. Supreme Court are things questioning pollution crossing state borders, state boundaries, state mineral rights, tax monies, things of that sort.

Should Die Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

Wouldn't state B not have a lot of say since the body is buried there and therefore they would most likely have all the evidence? Or does location of evidence not matter? Also, state B's laws are violated by burying someone who has not been legally 'written' up (given a death certificate)?