Could they do it?

JMISBEST

Mongoose
If someone is on trial for physically assaulting Children without specified act or acts and the majority of The Jury know that he is innocent of the actual physical act or acts he's accused but that he is guilty of acts of physical child abuse that no one other then they and the defendant know about can they, if found out, justify finding him guilty, regardless of the evidence, of unspecified acts of child abuse because they know that he's innocent of the 10 or so he's accused of but also know that he's guilty of committing more then 30 that have never been reported?

Can't say anything else without risking giving away most of the plot of A Traveller Campaign that's basically CSI on the scale of A Star System rather then A American County that I'm preparing but may never play.
 
In most of the better legal systems here on earth, you can only be convicted of the crimes you are accused of. If you are accused of crime A, but the prosecutor can't convince the jury that you are guilty of crime A (because, for example, you are actually innocent and didn't commit crime A), the jury (or judge, or judges, depending on the legal system in question) HAS to acquit you. It doesn't matter if you are a bad person, or guilty of some other crime B only they know of.
If they want to convict you for crime B, they have to accuse you of crime B.
 
Could they do it and feel morally justified? Maybe.

Could they do it and be legally justified? Not unless that legal system allows it - and if it's based on most real-world 'western' systems then the answer is no.

In the same vein, and assuming a similar legal system, they should probably not be on the jury in the first place. Believing something like that about the person is more than enough grounds to be recused, and not declaring that conflict could get them in trouble in its own right.
 
nemesis_thoughtcrime2.png
 
Back
Top