eribosot,
@eribosot@mastodon.social avatar

This was an actual 1911 court case in the Netherlands.

A man called Willem Markus catches the suspect, Johannes Beek, stealing city money. Markus reports Beek, who is fired. Beek bakes a cake full of rat poison (arsenic) and sends it to the Markus home. Markus doesn't eat it, but his wife does, and she dies.

Beek is tried for murder of the wife. Defense argues that Beek did not intend to kill the wife, only the husband. No intent means no murder; it's manslaughter at most.

How would you rule?

eribosot,
@eribosot@mastodon.social avatar

And now the reveal: the lower court ruled that this was manslaughter only, but was overturned on appeal. The Hoge Raad (highest court) agreed with the appeals court, creating the legal concept of "conditional intent." Conditional intent means that by intending to murder person X, you accept the risk of causing the death of person Y, and that counts as causing death with (conditional) intent, i.e. murder.

tony,
@tony@hoyle.me.uk avatar

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • eribosot,
    @eribosot@mastodon.social avatar

    @tony Here’s the question: should the sentence be the same as it would have been if Beek had killed the intended target?

    starlightradio,
    @starlightradio@mastodon.au avatar

    @eribosot I'd add a count of attempted murder

    eribosot,
    @eribosot@mastodon.social avatar

    @starlightradio Attempted murder is for when a) you intended to murder person X but b) X didn't die. Strictly speaking, Beek did not attempt to murder the wife.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • everett
  • Durango
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • tester
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines