Khem says:
"And might the claim to have killed someone by
magical means then carry the same weight in the
eyes of the law as a smoking gun?
And is anyone else shuddering at the thought of
what could result?"
As I've argued elsewhere, it depends on whether you like the law of attempt,
and in particular punishing people for attempting the impossible. In English
criminal law (I've too much respect for the working of States Rights to say
*anything* about 'US criminal law') a defendant can be punished not for
succeeding in committing the crime, but for the attempt. In the late
twentieth century, it became clear that this punishment could follow even if
the attempt was impossible. So, for instance, you shoot a gun into a room
where you think someone is sleeping in an attempt to murder them. They had
died of natural causes overnight, so it was impossible for you to succeed in
killing them. You are still guilty of attempted murder. Or another example,
you try to break into a safe with tools which are completely incapable of
succeeding at the task - you face conviction for attempting to steal the
contents, even if it was impossible for you to do so using your chosen
technique. The implications for methodologies whose potential to achieve the
desired ends is not recognised by the courts are pretty clear - and don't
need any legal or state acceptance of the methodology to kick in.
Peter.
|