I see what you're saying. If they convicted Mangione, and the real killer confessed, they'd likely just ignore it and double down on his guilt out of vanity. That's what usually happens in reality.
But it would not be a good idea for the real killer to confess. Yes, the video shows that one physical human wielded the gun, but as I am pointing out, that doesn't matter. That's the fucked-up part here: The legal system would allow two people to be convicted for it, unless somebody took deliberate action to overturn the first conviction.
It might go like this: The NY prosecutors get a conviction, and send Mangione to prison. Then, the real killer confesses. Being the real killer, the confession is very, very credible. The prosecutors can't brazen it out, and decide to charge and try him. If he pleaded guilty, wham, bam, done. The matter would go right to sentencing. If he pleaded not guilty, the judge might rule that the conviction of Mangione for the same for crime is not admissible evidence, as it might bias the jury. Even if the previous conviction was brought up at trial, they have a very credible confession; it's clear the real killer did it. And, even without a confession, the jury in the second trial is supposed to consider only whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. And if the evidence is strong enough, they probably would. The conviction of Mangione for the same crime would be a matter for another court.
Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that innocence is not grounds to have one's case heard before an appeals court, this scenario could easily result in two men in prison for the same crime. The outcome of both going free is highly unlikely.
Yes, in reality, the NY prosecutors probably would at least have enough integrity to move to overturn Mangione's conviction if they had a credible confession from another man. But they don't have to.
I got that it's a movie that subverts expectations, or cheekily thumbs its nose at norms, in a delightful way. It clearly derives its delight from the contrast with... something. I have no idea what those expectations or norms are, so the contrast (and the delight) is lost on me.
I have no desire to ever watch it. The romantic fantasy doesn't work for me as a straight man. I'm not attractive enough for some rich, hot woman to take an interest. Even the hot, male love interest dies in the end, but like Bill Burr said, I'd be the guy ricocheting off of the propeller as the ship breaks up.
Then I don't know what I can say more clearly. If they convict Mangione, and the real killer confesses, they can convict the real killer, too. They wouldn't even have to free Mangione to do it.
And there isn't. If prosecutors file a new case against a second person for the same crime, and get a conviction, there's no mechanism by which that second conviction overturns the previous conviction. Depending on the circumstances, the first person convicted may not even have grounds to have their case brought before a court to be re-examined.
Sure, a conviction can be overturned, but what I'm pointing out here is that it doesn't have to be in order to convict somebody else for the same crime.
There's no mechanism to release a conviction. Usually, if prosecutors have convicted somebody for murder, they won't pursue a case against a second person only for reason of not wanting to admit that they may have got it wrong. But there's no legal barrier, and it has happened for other crimes. The Ninth Circuit even ruled that it's legal.
Why not? The double jeopardy clause is about prosecuting a single person twice; it says nothing about prosecuting a second person for the same crime. Heck, convicting a second person wouldn't even automatically invalidate the first conviction. (SCOTUS has ruled that innocence is not a sufficient reason to overturn a conviction.)
Remember, we have a judicial system. Calling it a "justice system" is inaccurate.
You can. You can sue for any reason that you can dream up. True, a lot of those suits would get thrown out on a motion for summary judgement, but a libel suit would likely pass the test of a prima facie valid case, and the case would proceed. Now, if the facts don't support it, then you'd lose, but if you have a lot more money than the defendant, you can use procedure to bury them financially.
It's one of the major flaws in the U.S. legal system, and anti-SLAPP laws are far too weak, since they usually rely on the defendant to try to enforce them.
A very thoughtful reply, and I'll bet you're probably correct. The thing that gave me pause, though, was that explosions on cargo ships usually occur because of explosive cargo. The engines use bunker fuel, a heavy oil which is almost tar-like. It doesn't vaporize at ambient temperatures. The engine room fires that I have heard of don't tend to cause a ship to sink. I'm no expert, though, and I suppose there are other things aboard that could cause explosions, like batteries for emergency power?
The quality triangle format obscures the truth: U.S. health care is only fast and good if you can afford to pay for it. So, for the rest of us, since it's not cheap, it's also not fast and not good.
Let me tell you about Wisconsin: We regularly bump 17-year-old offenders into adult court. So, yes, we have had cases of 17-year-old couples tried as adults for having sex with a minor after they had sex with each other.
If the implication of that fact hasn't sunk in I'll make it explicit: We treat them as adults for the purposes of being a criminal, and a minor for the purposes of being a victim.
Replace Thompson with Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.
Our celebratory reaction to Thompson being brought to justice isn't going to lead to bad things. No, it's the result of being on the losing end of the world we already inhabit.
The 55th World Economic Forum will happen in a few weeks, but the security will probably be, like, almost twice as tight as the average school.
/s