Another hypothetical situation

[Rageaholic]

The thread on the death penalty and the flawed system which prosecutes people made me think of this. Let's say Joe is the prime suspect in a murder case. All evidence points to him, but he didn't kill anyone. Joe, believing he should not go to jail for something he didn't do, flees to another state or country and starts a new life. 5 years later, after evidence is analyzed, the court realizes that Joe didn't kill anyone and they had the wrong guy. Even though Joe was cleared from the murder, could he still be charged with evading arrest? If not, how much more would he have to have done in his evasion to be charged with further crimes?

I wonder this because actions movies always have the framed hero fighting with cops, engaging in high speed chases, taking people hostage, and sometimes even killing people to prove his innocence. Obviously, some of these heroes would be charged with more crimes even if they get cleared of the one they were framed for. But how would that work in real life?

For instance, what if Joe didn't assault any other people and just evaded arrest to start a new life? And then comes forward when system realizes it's error. Could he be charged with creating a fake identiy if that's what it took to start a new life?

Or what if Joe actually found the guy who did it on his own, but ended up assaulting the guy in a fight to contain him?

What if the cops had a shoot to kill order on him, and he killed some of them in self defense?

Basically, how much can one get away with if they were only evading the system who's screw up would have put him in jail? If the courts fail, are we supposed to just buck up and take the punishment (even though we didn't do anything)? Or can take things into our own hands and get off, even when the courts realizes they screwed up royally?

[bara]

As long as no one was hurt, Id say let the guy walk. Victimless crimes should easily be forgiven when the subject was innocent to begin with.
I would also allow for crimes that do have victims, to also be given consideration as long as the issue doesnt involve violence or something that impacts living conditions. Its hard to blame a man who is trying to stay out of assrape city for stealing a loaf of bread or something becuse he is on the run. Thats just an example of course.

[HYHYBT]

I think it's much like the DMCA: what would, by all other measures, be your right isn't if they say so.

[DrFaroohk]

Well I know on TV people can still be charged even if it turned out they didn't do it. Not sure how much is true but probably some of it is.

I expect there would be a DA somewhere with not enough to do who would feel the need to make an example of poor old Joe.

Hell I've heard tales of convictions being held up on innocent people only because to overturn it might cause people to doubt our justice system, and we all know that's a bad thing!

[Shangri-laschild]

What if the cops had a shoot to kill order on him, and he killed some of them in self defense?

First off, cops don't shoot to wound. If you have to shoot it's because your life is in danger. Good training should teach them not to anyway. I'm not denying that there aren't cops out there who think of it as a viable option. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by a shoot to kill order. That kind of order doesn't mean shoot if the person is being peaceful. If you are not a threat, that kind of order does not allow the police to shoot you. Even if you're known for having brutally murdered someone and no one believes you are a good person. If you're not a threat, they aren't legally allowed to shoot.

[Rageaholic]

First off, cops don't shoot to wound. If you have to shoot it's because your life is in danger. Good training should teach them not to anyway. I'm not denying that there aren't cops out there who think of it as a viable option. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by a shoot to kill order. That kind of order doesn't mean shoot if the person is being peaceful. If you are not a threat, that kind of order does not allow the police to shoot you. Even if you're known for having brutally murdered someone and no one believes you are a good person. If you're not a threat, they aren't legally allowed to shoot.

Scrap that one then. I watch too much TV/movies.

[linguist]

being innocent of one crime doesn't excuse any crimes you may commit in trying to prove your innocence. if you commit assault, or theft, or evade police, or escape from prison, etc, those are all separate crimes you are not innocent of, and should be at the very least charged with. a prosecutor or jury may decide to reduce punishment given mitigating circumstances, but that makes you no less guilty of the crimes you have committed.

[Rageaholic]

being innocent of one crime doesn't excuse any crimes you may commit in trying to prove your innocence. if you commit assault, or theft, or evade police, or escape from prison, etc, those are all separate crimes you are not innocent of, and should be at the very least charged with. a prosecutor or jury may decide to reduce punishment given mitigating circumstances, but that makes you no less guilty of the crimes you have committed.

Fair enough, one should be charged with crimes they commit, but even evading police? The only reason that would be a crime is if the guy was guilty in the first place. In that instance, the system had failed for the time being since he was wrongly convicted. The only alternative would be to take the punishment even though you didn't deserve it. Therefore relying on the system even though they were wrong.

I can understand arguing for more punishment if the guy had assaulted, harmed, or stolen when trying to evade police. Those are seperate crimes (though YMMV on how much leeway and consideration should be given), but if his only crime was not evading the police (or evading an unjust punishment), I fail to see why he should be charged. If anything, they owe him for their error.

[linguist]

Fair enough, one should be charged with crimes they commit, but even evading police?

evading police is a crime, and could potentially cause a public safety risk if you run from active pursuit, especially if in a vehicle.

[Rageaholic]

Okay, then what if he just disappeared? Perhaps moved to another country or state, then came back home when he found out he was cleared. No high speed chases, no putting people in harms way. Just starting a new life somewhere else.

[Andara Bledin]

He should be charged with all subsequent crimes.

In the case of just hiding, it would merely be the whole not appearing thing.

One thing that most people are unaware of in jury trials is that the jury, even finding the defendant guilty, can choose to render a not guilty verdict if they believe that the defendant was justified in his actions (no matter how illegal). Of course, most people also are unaware that the jury's verdict is merely a recommendation and the judge doesn't actually have to accept their findings.

The fun stuff you learn in legal classes when you have awesome teachers.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

How, exactly, is evading the police defined under the law? Aside from obvious scenarios like high-speed car chases, what is covered here?

[Andara Bledin]

Well, failure to appear, resisting arrest, and evading (it's a specific offense) either misdemeanor or felony depending on what is done during the pursuit. That's just what I can name off the top of my head. There are many more, I'm sure.

^-.-^