Can i go to jail for intending to kill someone? attempted murder?

by **caffar** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:42 am

question from criminal law -

Betty finds out Fred is cheating, she wants to kill him. She takes an auto class so she can tamper with his car so he will have a car crash and die. One day when returning from class Fred confronts her on his. Hse admits she was taking the class so she could cause a fiery car accident. Fred records the conversation and gives it to police....

can she be found guilt of "attempted murder"?

by **hewlett** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:49 am

She never attempted the murder.

by **rheged** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:54 am

sure she will go to jail for years for just attempting

by **sebastiano** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:56 am

Only conspiracy. Plus, it's just words, hearsay. The case will fall apart. She will be released.

EDIT: Also, anything Can be used against you. All that makes up for Circumstantial Evidence.

EDIT:Patton, AhSo: Yeah, but they can file any charge they Want against Anyone and Jail them. For how Long, well, depends if charges stick or how good a lawyer they get. I Know, it Happened to Me. I can produce court record, police reports. Anyone can charge you With Anything. Don't call me a "liar" or a "dummy". I didn't "imagine " 9 months in jail on unwarranted charges, The fact 5 were dropped Shows this.

by **sheridan93** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:59 am

No
One cold say it was just wishful thinking. We all have ideations about people, wish them good, bad, tell em drop dead, so if i said drop dead and they did?
Like asking can one be prosecuted for their thoughts.
Although there is a statement of Yes, their is no actual act done, just wishful thinking.
Suspicion YES, crime none. One could say Oh Intent to do, yes but the act has to be carried out to apply intent as an act of actuality.
The letter from her husband, could lead to an indictment, if in fact one day he was found dead in a fiery car accident.
Conspiracy has to be two or more people to plan this event, conspired with.

by **montgomery69** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:11 am

No, if you do manage to get prosecuted and don't want to spend a few years in prison, just hired Korean mafias to beat the court judge's *** into submission.

by **deangelo51** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:17 am

She can be charged with attempted murder.

by **roche** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:20 am

if her intention was to kill him by tampring with his car and causing the crash and the prosocution can prove that then she could be cahrged with attemped murder, provinding she carried out the car tampering. she has not admitted she wanted to murder him so she coulnd't be found guilty of attempted murder from that tape, also she has not commited out an action, just though about it.
(i am guessing you are doing some kind of law course and it was a question on it) - so think about it, she needs the mens rea (state of mind) and the (act) actus reus for the murder, for attempted murder she needs the mens rea of murder and actus reus of gbh, she hasn't admitted her mens rea or done the actus reus so no conviction and their has no offence been commited.
ps: i am the same person as the mila one just on a new account :)

by **bardoul** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:24 am

Not only can she not be found guilty of attempted murder, she can't even be charged with it. She made no overt attempt to do it. Just taking a class means nothing. She could always take the class, finish the class, then decide nah I'm not going to do it. There has to be an attempt, or at least some step taken towards making the attempt, not just an idea. And whoever said it's a conspiracy is a dummy. ONE person can not be in a conspiracy. Just by legal definition a conspiracy requires at least two or more people to be a part of it.

And cougarwhatever is overlooking the fact that no permission is needed to record a conversation. Some states have different criteria for recording a phone call. In my state as long as at least ONE party of the phone call knows it's being recorded that's all it takes. If you're doing the recording, and you're part of the conversation, that's all it takes.

by **zadok** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:51 am

Everyone is overlooking the fact that regardless of what she said, the conversation was illegally recorded without her consent and therefore is inadmissible in court. There goes all of the evidence for the case out the window. This is based on the Illinois (my state) eavesdropping statute, which requires consent of all persons involved in a conversation being recorded. You didn't mention which state, so you may want to check your state's laws on this.

Advertisments:

Sponsor Links: