Can you be convicted for being a murderer twice? Germany has this weird specialty¹ in its criminal law's murder paragraph. While most paragraphs say something like “The person who does A is punished with B”, the murder paragraph (“Strafgesetzbuch § 211”) reads²: The murderer is punished with lifelong imprisonment. A murderer is, who kills a person motivated by the lust to murder, to satisfy sexual desire, because of greed, or of other nether motives, in a perfidious or gruesome way or with means dangerous to the public safety or to facilitate or hide another crime. Now, don't get held up by the conditions in Sentence 2. The important point here is that a person is being punished for being something (namely a murderer), not doing something. It is worth noting that lifelong imprisonment in Germany usually means something like thirty years. So it's perfectly possible to murder somebody, go to prison, get out, murder somebody else. However, at the point of the second murder you are already a murderer, for which you already have been punished. The paragraph says that you are being punished for being a murderer, not for murdering somebody. Thus – do you walk free the second time? I imagine the answer being "obviously not", however how does that follow from the above paragraph? ¹ Which has been subject to a lot of discussion, especially since it stems from Germany's Nazi times… ² Translation is mine, and I'm not a law person, so take it with a grain of salt.
Murder is one of the few cases where the intention and not just the act is relevant. The act – killing a person – is the same for Mord and Totschlag, whereas fahrlässige Tötung covers acts that have caused the death of a person. The language of the Stgb labels the perpetrator who killed someone as a murderer or manslaughterer depending on their intention. That a person and not an act is punished is often criticized, but it has no practical consequence. Clearly, the intention isn't that the second one is free. Courts are able to interpret the law reasonably. However, the distinction between two kinds of killings seems to have no basis in reality and robs courts from flexibility to find a just sentence. There are occasional attempts at reform, but none will be successful while CDU/CSU is part of the government.
This will probably depend on what you understand as a citizen's arrest and will probably differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Germany the closest thing to citizen's arrest is called Vorläufige Festnahme (Provisional arrest) and probably contains a different set of conditions when it can be used. § 127 Provisional arrest (1) If a person is caught in the act or is being pursued, any person shall be authorised to arrest him provisionally, even without judicial order, if there is reason to suspect flight or if his identity cannot be immediately established. The establishment of the identity of a person by the public prosecution office or by police officers shall be governed by section 163b (1). ... Through the usage of the word jedermann (any person), a child (minor) can also exercise this right. Sources: § 127 Provisional arrest - German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung – StPO)
Natural law does not prescribe particular punishments, that only comes from statutory law. Under Indian law, this would seem to be a violation of IPC 304a, &quot;causing death by negligence&quot;. There is no intent to cause great injury, indeed it is a complete mystery why the boy died. The penalty is up to two years imprisonment and a fine. There are more details in IPC 300, focusing on intent to kill under extreme provocation, but the required intent is lacking here. The courts may be lenient, having considered surrounding circumstances, and sentence her to less than the maximum punishment.
This is the cited article. Thankfully, the interviewee provided a scan of the police letter he received, so the rest of this question is relatively easy to answer. He was specifically charged with Störung der öffentlichen Ordnung (lit. Disturbance of the public order) persuant to &sect;&nbsp;81(1) of the Sicherheitspolizeigesetz, which reads (after putting it through Google Translate): Who by a behavior that is likely to arouse legitimate annoyance, disturbs public order, commits an administrative offense and is punishable by a fine of up to 500 euros, unless the behavior is justified, in particular by the use of a constitutionally guaranteed right , In the event of aggravating circumstances, instead of a fine, imprisonment can be imprisoned for up to one week, or up to two weeks for repeated offenses. This law is almost certainly constitutional as it specifically allows exercise of constitutional rights. Note this also includes human rights, as Austria has included the European Convention on Human Rights as part of its constitution. Given that, I'm guessing if the interviewee had wanted to, he would have had a decent shot at having this charge dismissed.
Yes Now, murder needs a definition because they are all subtly different. Let’s use the one in the new-south-wales Crimes Act 1900: Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years. The only real difficulty is in the phrase “causing the death charged”. So a sensible prosecutor would charge both defendants with both deaths. A jury would find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one of the “death[s] charged”. The case is similar to Rogerson and McNamara who took a live Jamie Gao into a storeroom and came out with a body. Each accused the other of the murder - the jury didn’t believe either of them.
It depends on what you mean by &quot;doesn't stick.&quot; If Mark is acquitted of murder in state court, he can't be tried again in state court for the same act of homicide. If the charges are dropped or dismissed without prejudice before jeopardy &quot;attaches&quot; then Mark can be charged again and tried for manslaughter or even murder. From Wikipedia: The Double Jeopardy clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment. Jeopardy &quot;attaches&quot; when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted. Any lesser crimes that could be charged for the same act (or acts) are instead considered concurrently with the main charge (or charges) at the original trial. See lesser included offense at Wikipedia. And if you can charge him with B, does that mean you have to do a whole nother trial? Yes. If you can charge Mark again, this means that jeopardy did not attach. In this case, if a new charge is to be brought, the entire process starts again from the beginning.
The laws on this will vary somewhat from state to state in the US. But in general, a person who convinces another to commit a murder might be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, or accessory to murder. Being an accessory often carries the same penalties as being in principal, and in some jurisdictions there is no legal difference. In addition such a person might be charged with a violation of Federal law, specifically 18 USC 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. Subsection (a) provides that: (a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years. In US law charges of &quot;incitement&quot; are limited by the &quot;imminent lawless action&quot; test laid down in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) The court opion in that case states: the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. This case held that a person may not be convicted of crime for speech advocating violence unless the advocacy is for immediate, present violence, or at least violence in the very near future, and there there must be significant likelihood of the violence actually occurring. This test has mostly been used in cases of public advocacy of violence to groups or crowds, but nothing prevents it from begin used in cases of one-on-one advocacy. See also the Wikipedia article &quot;Incitement&quot;. I have not researched the specific charges in the Manson case.
Under current law, an &quot;infamous&quot; crime, for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment, is one which carries a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year, or death. In other words, &quot;infamous crime&quot; is now a synonym for &quot;felony&quot;. For context, the Fifth Amendment reads: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury [...] So the definition of &quot;infamous&quot; would control which crimes must be prosecuted by an indictment from a grand jury. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 describes which crimes must be prosecuted by indictment, and its accompanying notes link this to the &quot;infamous&quot; criterion: (a) (1) Felony. An offense (other than criminal contempt) must be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable: (A) by death; or (B) by imprisonment for more than one year. [...] Note to Subdivision (a). 1. This rule gives effect to the following provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury * * *”. An infamous crime has been defined as a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment in a penitentiary or at hard labor, Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 427; United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433. Any sentence of imprisonment for a term of over one year may be served in a penitentiary, if so directed by the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 753f [now 4082, 4083] (Commitment of persons by any court of the United States and the juvenile court of the District of Columbia; place of confinement; transfers). Consequently any offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of over one year is an infamous crime.