Pretend you’re a juror.
Person A steals Person B’s car, and is caught. During his trial, it is revealed that Person B bought the car with the proceeds of a theft that he himself committed. Person B’s victim has since died and left no heirs. Person A, who is on trial, argues that he did not commit theft, since Person B is not the legitimate owner of the car – in fact, there is no legitimate owner. You are on the jury. Do you think Person A is guilty of theft or not?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I say Person C could sue Person B and get a judgment that would force Person B to sell assets and garnish wages to pay damages to Person C. The police might save Person C the trouble my charging Person B with a crime and making restitution to Person C part of the criminal penalty. This is helpful to Person C b/c there's no debtors' prison, but criminal court could give Person B the choice of jail or making restitution, an indirect debtors' prison.
But I say the car belonged to Person B, even though he happens to be a thief himself.
Recall when I was a corrections officers, thieves were the real scum among inmates.
I also recall a Brit contract murderer who got along with everybody and was polite to the officers.
Murderers aren't hard to boss, but that's only general prison population relatively speaking.
The prison I worked at IS named after an officer who got murdered by a cop killer in a segregation unit that was not part of death row.
Shoulda been death row! Thanks, justice system.
By the way, when a gangsta Glocks a gangsta, a quick drop from the end of a rope is too good for him..
To hell with all the so-called "humane" goody two-shoes medicate them unto oblivion and get sued if you mess it up bull crap.
A bullet is cheaper than a rope, by the way.