Towel headed paki sand-nigger takes out a hit on a woman who has scorned him, and hires local hooligan to do the job for him.
Woman places phonecall to the police while locked in the trunk of the hitman's car (together with shovels and lime), lasting 15 minutes before it goes dead, and so does she. Police are unable to trace the call and apparently it was due to the usual red tape bull shit. Bitch is dead, anyway.
Sentencing today.
Killer gets off with a relatively harsh sentence, 17 years for kidnapping and manslaughter (apparently the murder was an accident and there was no intent to kill her, only abduct her, the shovel was for gardening) while the guy who set it all up gets off with...
8 years for kidnapping.
He wasn't party to the actual killing, and so he gets off.
And I? I am left with another reason to hate Scandinavia.
Moral of the story? If you want someone dead, rather than hiring someone to kill them, hire them to "just kidnap".
the victim was actually a bit hott
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.vg.no%2Fuploaded%2Fimage%2Fbilderigg%2F2010%2F03%2F01%2F1267451304541_249.jpg&hash=d7eb483ce7cacebd66563f2709ac539cc17024f8)
actually, I'm surprised that slargos hasn't pointed out that the hitman was a white norwegian and the one who comissioned the crime was a "mudblood" pakistani.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 12:43:51 PM
the victim was actually a bit hott
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.vg.no%2Fuploaded%2Fimage%2Fbilderigg%2F2010%2F03%2F01%2F1267451304541_249.jpg&hash=d7eb483ce7cacebd66563f2709ac539cc17024f8)
You ruined my setup. They were going to make assumptions and go "OMG u wuldnt be so mad if she wasn't white" and I would angrily note that this time the dune coon actually killed one of his own.
Thanks a lot. :P
But yeah. It's the sentencing I'm pissed over. I really don't care about a dead paki other than the fact that it's going to cost the Norwegian tax payers somewhere between 30-40 million NOK to keep these two unruly young men incarcerated.
Seems reasonable to me. 17 and 8 years are long times, respectively.
Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
You ruined my setup. They were going to make assumptions and go "OMG u wuldnt be so mad if she wasn't white" and I would angrily note that this time the dune coon actually killed one of his own.
Thanks a lot. :P
Always happy to ruin your day :P
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 12:52:46 PM
Seems reasonable to me. 17 and 8 years are long times, respectively.
It seems to me an extreme injustice that you can get away with murder by hiring someone rather than doing it yourself.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 12:47:39 PM
actually, I'm surprised that slargos hasn't pointed out that the hitman was a white norwegian and the one who comissioned the crime was a "mudblood" pakistani.
He said that the hitman was local--I took that to mean that it was a Norwegian.
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except for the bit where she actually did get killed, yeah.
In the U.S., generally, if someone is killed during the course of a felony, it's considered murder, even if the death was an "accident".
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 12:47:39 PM
actually, I'm surprised that slargos hasn't pointed out that the hitman was a white norwegian and the one who comissioned the crime was a "mudblood" pakistani.
Since it's an internal job, I can't get worked up about the racial factor here. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 12:52:46 PM
Seems reasonable to me. 17 and 8 years are long times, respectively.
It seems to me an extreme injustice that you can get away with murder by hiring someone rather than doing it yourself.
That is pretty odd, I agree; presumably your prosecutors were unable to prove an agreement to kill (I mean, they didn't even prove an intent to kill in the hitman).
Although of course, it's murder in commission of felony here.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 12:52:46 PM
Seems reasonable to me. 17 and 8 years are long times, respectively.
I think he's just pissed off that the white guy got 17 years but the black one got 8.
The hitman
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.vg.no%2Fuploaded%2Fimage%2Fbilderigg%2F2010%2F03%2F05%2F1267792479068_769.jpg&hash=85ab9c2b0bc5bc284e682458f127a2a9d4a2af2f)
Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except for the bit where she actually did get killed, yeah.
In the U.S., generally, if someone is killed during the course of a felony, it's considered murder, even if the death was an "accident".
What he's objecting to is the guy who actually killed her getting a higher sentance than the guy who had nought to do with the killing.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 12:52:46 PM
Seems reasonable to me. 17 and 8 years are long times, respectively.
I think he's just pissed off that the white guy got 17 years but the black one got 8.
The hitman
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.vg.no%2Fuploaded%2Fimage%2Fbilderigg%2F2010%2F03%2F05%2F1267792479068_769.jpg&hash=85ab9c2b0bc5bc284e682458f127a2a9d4a2af2f)
Sweden has rednecks. Fascinating.
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:56:39 PM
Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except for the bit where she actually did get killed, yeah.
In the U.S., generally, if someone is killed during the course of a felony, it's considered murder, even if the death was an "accident".
What he's objecting to is the guy who actually killed her getting a higher sentance than the guy who had nought to do with the killing.
Except for hiring him to kill her.
Dude's Norwegian and apparently lived on protein shakes and steroids.
It's strange that Khan (yes, that's the other guy) got off the murder charge, given that it is rather firmly established that he ordered No Brains to kill her.
Still, I expect the prosecution won't let this lie.
Quote from: Norgy on April 14, 2011, 01:02:26 PM
Dude's Norwegian and apparently lived on protein shakes and steroids.
It's strange that Khan (yes, that's the other guy) got off the murder charge, given that it is rather firmly established that he ordered No Brains to kill her.
Still, I expect the prosecution won't let this lie.
I fervently hope not.
I don't think I can take any more of this. Eventually I'll crack and start going after judges. I expect they'll catch me after the first one. <_<
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
Sweden has rednecks. Fascinating.
Norway, Sweden has RedNex
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezone.mn%2FUpload%2FFileimg%2Forig%2FRednex.jpg&hash=0037db457136a4d274e73f87f204d16dbdedb1fd)
:Joos
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
Sweden has rednecks. Fascinating.
Norway, Sweden has RedNex
I got confused. Forgot Slargy had immigrated. -_-
Quote from: ValmyExcept he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
Well, that's why the backyard wrestler there got a manslaughter conviction. I suppose Norway simply doesn't have a law that makes the principal criminally liable.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
Not that I entirely trust the reports from the courts, but both these guys were more than a little insane. The Khan character had been stalking her for ages and tried to hire several people to spy on her, abduct her and even kill her. The irony is that the police didn't really follow those leads, as they seemed preoccupied with their own angle; honour killing by a family member.
It is not uncommon, but in the case of a Norwegian girl being abducted, I am sure a stalker would be on the suspect list.
Khan seems to have been doing everything possible to make her life a miserable hell, and for that alone deserves more than 8 years, unless those years are spent with Slargosians in the shower.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:16:01 PM
I got confused. Forgot Slargy had immigrated. -_-
And still I don't get a pass on racism, despite being an immigrant myself. Turns out you need to be brown-skinned in order to be allowed racism.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
According to the OP the guy received a manslaughter conviction. I'd think it could instead be more like what the US would call second degree murder, the step above manslaughter, but depending on how the trial went, it could be a manslaughter conviction instead.
Quote from: Norgy on April 14, 2011, 01:17:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
Not that I entirely trust the reports from the courts, but both these guys were more than a little insane. The Khan character had been stalking her for ages and tried to hire several people to spy on her, abduct her and even kill her. The irony is that the police didn't really follow those leads, as they seemed preoccupied with their own angle; honour killing by a family member.
It is not uncommon, but in the case of a Norwegian girl being abducted, I am sure a stalker would be on the suspect list.
Khan seems to have been doing everything possible to make her life a miserable hell, and for that alone deserves more than 8 years, unless those years are spent with Slargosians in the shower.
Ironic? No. More like "typical".
It is the Norwegian way.
Q: How do you kill a Norwegian
turgåer in the mountains?
A: Mark his map with a bridge spanning a cliff and wait for him to attempt to cross it.
Quote from: KRonn on April 14, 2011, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
According to the OP the guy received a manslaughter conviction. I'd think it could instead be more like what the US would call second degree murder, the step above manslaughter, but depending on how the trial went, it could be a manslaughter conviction instead.
The designations have always confused and bewildered me.
He was sentenced for murdering her, rather than "causing death" but it was not deemed deliberate or planned.
Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:16:01 PM
I got confused. Forgot Slargy had immigrated. -_-
And still I don't get a pass on racism, despite being an immigrant myself. Turns out you need to be brown-skinned in order to be allowed racism.
You immigrated to a virtually identical country. :lol: It's like if I went to go live in Texas. Except I'd have to
travel farther.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:16:01 PM
I got confused. Forgot Slargy had immigrated. -_-
And still I don't get a pass on racism, despite being an immigrant myself. Turns out you need to be brown-skinned in order to be allowed racism.
You immigrated to a virtually identical country. :lol: It's like if I went to go live in Texas. Except I'd have to travel farther.
If you only knew...
The Norwegians may be white, but underneath they're no better than Somalis or Gypsies.
I guess in that sense I am left looking rather foolish when claiming race is the problem rather than a deeply corrupt culture.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
Norwegian Law /= American Law, remember? Pre-meditation in comitting the kidnapping does not result in premeditation in the death that comes as a result of the kidnapping. Khan's defense was basically that he payed the guy to kidnap her, not kill her. Nyfløt's defense was (and this is comic gold) that he didn't want to kidnap her, he wanted to use the kidnapping to set up khan and murder him instead because he was inspired by the TV show Dexter to be serial killer that killed criminals.
If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows). Norwegian law, obviously, is different.
I'm still trying to find out who the lay-judges were in this case and what political party they belonged to.
Edit: Lay Judges are not mentioned in the media (much like jury's), but for this level court guilt or innocence is decided by a panel of three, one judge and two lay judges. The lay judges are selected by the local county council. At the next level up (which this case will be appealed to) you have three judges deciding legal issues and a panel of 10 lay judges (basically a jury) which decides guilt. My problem with the lay judges (basically the jury pool) is that it is not random, but rather selected by the county council.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows). Norwegian law, obviously, is different.
I'm still trying to find out who was the lay-judge in this case and what political party he/she belonged to.
Have you been watching
Castle? :D
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 14, 2011, 12:53:45 PM
I don't see the big deal. Isn't kidnapping a lesser crime than killing? Even conspiring to kill would fall short of actually killing
Except he did kill her...through violent coercive force. He just did not mean to kill her...maybe. But if you commit an act of violence against somebody resulting in their death how is that not killing them?
Norwegian Law /= American Law, remember? Pre-meditation in comitting the kidnapping does not result in premeditation in the death that comes as a result of the kidnapping. Khan's defense was basically that he payed the guy to kidnap her, not kill her.
Personally, I think Norwegian law's got it right here.
QuoteIf I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows). Norwegian law, obviously, is different.
It depends (I guess?) on the jurisdiction. I know of no state or territorythat does
not have a felony murder provision.
Quote'm still trying to find out who was the lay-judge in this case and what political party he/she belonged to.
Does that matter a great deal? :unsure:
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows).
That's essentially correct, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., though technically they're not guilty until convicted.
Depending on the details of the case, it wouldn't be unusual for the prosecutor to arrange a plea bargain with the actual killer whereby the hitman would plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for his testimony against the person who hired him--the idea being to avoid what happened here, with the "mastermind" (so to speak, it doesn't sound like either of these guys would really deserve that title) of the crime getting a lighter sentence than the hireling.
Of course, as you point out, this didn't happen in an American jurisdiction, but I do have some trouble believing that Norwegian law doesn't allow you to be convicted of murder if you hire someone to kill for you, rather than doing it yourself.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:31:51 PM
Does that matter a great deal? :unsure:
Basically, the jury pool is the political party election lists and the weight of the proportions from which the jury pool is selected is by representation on the county/city council. Basically, they get picked just like the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, with some exceptions.
Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
Of course, as you point out, this didn't happen in an American jurisdiction, but I do have some trouble believing that Norwegian law doesn't allow you to be convicted of murder if you hire someone to kill for you, rather than doing it yourself.
The case here was that the defense argued that the intention was not to kill her, but rather just kidnap her. Had the prosecution proved that Khan had solicited Nystøl to kill her he would be found guilty of murder. So the reason Nystøl got a greater sentence was that he killed her during the kidnapping, while Khan was just sentenced for comissioning a kidnapping.
Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
If I understand US law right, if somebody dies as a result of a criminal act, those who participated in that criminal act are guilty of murder (or so it has been explained to me by fictional american TV shows).
That's essentially correct, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., though technically they're not guilty until convicted.
Depending on the details of the case, it wouldn't be unusual for the prosecutor to arrange a plea bargain with the actual killer whereby the hitman would plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for his testimony against the person who hired him--the idea being to avoid what happened here, with the "mastermind" (so to speak, it doesn't sound like either of these guys would really deserve that title) of the crime getting a lighter sentence than the hireling.
Of course, as you point out, this didn't happen in an American jurisdiction, but I do have some trouble believing that Norwegian law doesn't allow you to be convicted of murder if you hire someone to kill for you, rather than doing it yourself.
Well, the thing is that they found no intent to kill on either part, as I understand it.
Without the intent, husband can't be convicted except through felony murder (because he did commission a felony).
They convicted him of kidnapping, which shows that if you engage someone in Norway to do your crime for you, you can be prosecuted for that crime as the principal. They just don't seem to ascribe intent, or (depending on your interpretation) dispense with the intent element, the way that Anglo-American felony murder doctrine does.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:44:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:31:51 PM
Does that matter a great deal? :unsure:
Basically, the jury pool is the political party election lists and the weight of the proportions from which the jury pool is selected is by representation on the county/city council.
Whaaat? That's a crazy way to do juries.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:44:46 PM
Well, the thing is that they found no intent to kill on either part, as I understand it. Without the intent, husband can't be convicted except through felony murder (because he did commission a felony).
They convicted him of kidnapping, which shows that if you engage someone in Norway to do your crime for you, you can be prosecuted for that crime as the principal. They just don't seem to ascribe intent, or (depending on your interpretation) dispense with the intent element, the way that Anglo-American felony murder doctrine does.
Not Husband, STALKER.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
Whaaat? That's a crazy way to do juries.
That's what I said. In small and medium sized counties a politically active person probably knows every single potential juror personally.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:44:46 PM
Well, the thing is that they found no intent to kill on either part, as I understand it. Without the intent, husband can't be convicted except through felony murder (because he did commission a felony).
They convicted him of kidnapping, which shows that if you engage someone in Norway to do your crime for you, you can be prosecuted for that crime as the principal. They just don't seem to ascribe intent, or (depending on your interpretation) dispense with the intent element, the way that Anglo-American felony murder doctrine does.
Not Husband, STALKER.
Sorry. Lines probably crossed with the domestic violence case from this morning. (My client: innocent. :smoke: )
QuoteThat's what I said. In small and medium sized counties a politically active person probably knows every single potential juror personally.
We do it from voter rolls and driver's licenses here, I believe. It's randomish.
Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 01:22:56 PM
Ironic? No. More like "typical".
It's typical policing, yes. May I point out that your right-wing police force never bothered to look beyond foreigners or drunkards for Olof Palme's killer?
In this case, they found that a girl with immigrant parents was missing, hence it must've been an honour killing. So they followed your logic.
As for the jury selection, you can be fairly certain that no Progress Party members were in it, since convicted felons can't be selected for jury duty.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:52:22 PM
We do it from voter rolls and driver's licenses here, I believe. It's randomish.
Your system is much better imho. Technically the rules say that anybody can serve, but you have to apply to serve and be of sound financial status, not appointed to a government job and not a harbor pilot. The selection is made by the county political majority and selects based on proportion (as tradition) of votes.
The problem here is that the system requires honest and honourable people to function. Fortunately the system does have these people afaik. The real problem arisises (as will happen in sweden soon enough) when a political party which has racist policies/members gets to select lay-judges and jury members for a trial of a non-western immigrant or asylum seeker. With a random jury this bias might be there, but it is not obvious, but with this system bias is out in the open. Faith in the system will be harmed since either a racist might get off because of a declared racist on the jury or a racist which gets off might still be considered guilty because there was a racist on the jury.
Not to mention the likely swedish solution, basically don't allow them to pick for the jury pool. Permitting the minority parties to participate is not fixed in law, it is just custom.
Note that in the US, if you are really good at tackling running backs, being involved in murder is generally overlooked. Even if you kill 2 people at once!
But you have to be really good, and have a couple chumps along to play the fall guy for you - and even they won't be convicted of anything. It will turn out that two people just spontaneously stabbed themselves to death.
Norway is a hellhole.
I gotta ask: Why no harbor pilots?
Quote from: Norgy on April 14, 2011, 01:59:06 PM
As for the jury selection, you can be fairly certain that no Progress Party members were in it, since convicted felons can't be selected for jury duty.
Drammen has 6/49 FrP members, so a 2/7 chance of at least one of the judges being FrP. 21 Høyre btw, so at least one, possibly both, were conservatives.
Note: USAians, Conservative in Norway means Normally Raging Social Democrats that think they may have gone a bit to far this time.
Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 02:06:28 PM
I gotta ask: Why no harbor pilots?
Actually doctors are also exempted, basically vital professions where members can be called to duty at any time don't have to serve. You can't stop the trial just because a ship wants to get into the harbor, or you can't force the ship to stay at sea just because the trial i ongoing.
Quote from: Viking on April 14, 2011, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 01:52:22 PM
We do it from voter rolls and driver's licenses here, I believe. It's randomish.
Your system is much better imho. Technically the rules say that anybody can serve, but you have to apply to serve and be of sound financial status, not appointed to a government job and not a harbor pilot. The selection is made by the county political majority and selects based on proportion (as tradition) of votes.
The problem here is that the system requires honest and honourable people to function. Fortunately the system does have these people afaik. The real problem arisises (as will happen in sweden soon enough) when a political party which has racist policies/members gets to select lay-judges and jury members for a trial of a non-western immigrant or asylum seeker. With a random jury this bias might be there, but it is not obvious, but with this system bias is out in the open. Faith in the system will be harmed since either a racist might get off because of a declared racist on the jury or a racist which gets off might still be considered guilty because there was a racist on the jury.
Do you guys' attorneys at least have the capability to strike jurors for no cause? In theory, we can't do that for race or sex, but we can roshambo for it. And practically, we can do it for race or sex. Also, and more meaningfully, for socio-economic class. We have unlimited strikes if we can show cause.
I'm not sure if political affiliation is even a valid question here, though. I don't believe it's disallowed, it just wouldn't tell you very much.
Quote from: BerkutNote that in the US, if you are really good at tackling running backs, being involved in murder is generally overlooked. Even if you kill 2 people at once!
But you have to be really good, and have a couple chumps along to play the fall guy for you - and even they won't be convicted of anything. It will turn out that two people just spontaneously stabbed themselves to death.
A locked room mystery, eh? My nose is twitching.
Quote from: Berkut on April 14, 2011, 02:03:07 PM
Note that in the US, if you are really good at tackling running backs, being involved in murder is generally overlooked. Even if you kill 2 people at once!
But you have to be really good, and have a couple chumps along to play the fall guy for you - and even they won't be convicted of anything. It will turn out that two people just spontaneously stabbed themselves to death.
Given that their lives had no value anyways, what difference does it make? Their families got rich at least.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 02:13:38 PM
Do you guys' attorneys at least have the capability to strike jurors for no cause? In theory, we can't do that for race or sex, but we can roshambo for it. And practically, we can do it for race or sex. Also, and more meaningfully, for socio-economic class. We have unlimited strikes if we can show cause.
I'm not sure if political affiliation is even a valid question here, though. I don't believe it's disallowed, it just wouldn't tell you very much.
Note, I'm not an expert, but I have looked up disqualification. Basically you have to give a good reason to disqualify a lay-judge or juror. Technically the lay-judge or juror has to disqualify him/herself. I'm sure the presiding judge can suggest that the juror does so as well, since they do have alternates. This is a big issue on legal message boards discussing the issue here in Norway, though it does not make it into the press. Special concerns are not so much that jurors might be biased towards or against the parties to the trial (honor system ftl imho) but rather that the lay judge pool is so small and the political society so inbred that you might get spouses, friends or business partners serving as the two lay judges who might then not be willing to do as the presiding judge suggests they do.
So, no free disqualifications. You need to provide good reason. The reasons for disqualification are if you are related to one of the parties, have an interest in the outcome of the case or if you have some relationship to the parties or the case which might affect your judgment. The lay judges are presumed to be honest because of their means of selection.
Quote from: Norgy on April 14, 2011, 01:59:06 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 01:22:56 PM
Ironic? No. More like "typical".
It's typical policing, yes. May I point out that your right-wing police force never bothered to look beyond foreigners or drunkards for Olof Palme's killer?
In this case, they found that a girl with immigrant parents was missing, hence it must've been an honour killing. So they followed your logic.
As for the jury selection, you can be fairly certain that no Progress Party members were in it, since convicted felons can't be selected for jury duty.
Your :face: your :moon: what's teh difference. :P
Well played.