Just another little teaser . . . (and apologies to all who are getting sick of them!)
Allegedly, the following is a true case:
A man was in court charged with wilfully murdering an innocent person. Eventually, he confessed and was found guilty. The judge, pronouncing sentence, said ‘This is the strangest case over which I have ever presided. Although you have been found guilty of wilful murder, I have no choice but to let you go free.’
Can anyone explain why the judge felt he had no choice in the matter (he was not threatened or coerced)? A clue rests with the guilty individual.
Yes, that could have accounted for it - or for a sentence in a mental institution at any rate. But that’s not the case - sorry. Brilliant idea, though.
As far as I know, it’s an actual case, and even if it weren’t, there’s no trick involved. But the answer lies in the nature of the guilty party (a man) who walked free with the court’s approval, although convicted of murder. The judge didn’t show favoritism and nor was he bribed. He just thought he had no choice. The jury agreed.
If murder is willful and intentional killing, then guilt would be the result of the so called murderer having known it was wrong to do it. If he knew he was wrong, then he wouldn’t have done it. So it’s like a contradiction in the definition of murder, which would mean he’d find the guy not guilty of murder, because if he felt guilty after then he wouldn’t have committed the crime?
In most countries, murder (as opposed to manslaughter and possibly crimes of passion) is defined roughly as killing another human being with malice aforethought. This means committing a guilty act in a guilty frame of mind. The killer knows the act is wrong but carries it out nevertheless - often in the hope that s/he will not be caught. There are certain rules which apply in cases where the accused did not have a guilty mind at the time of the offence - often because of insanity. S/he would have committed the act even in the presence of a police officer. If such rules apply, then sentence is often mitigated. In the present instance, we can suppose that the offender knew that what he was doing was wrong - legally and morally. Yet he was still set free with the unanimous agreement of the court.