|
The interesting twist is that oftentimes accessory/accomplish/conspirator are civil crimes, and so there's no "burden of proof" only "preponderance of the evidence." I was charged with conspiracy against the US myself, and I was told by the DA that it'd be better to take the plea bargain than attempt to show my innocence in court. Why? Because I'd have to prove that I WASN'T aware of anything going on.
Think about that -- how do you PROVE that you actually DIDN't know anything? My opinion is that conspiracy should not be a crime, unless you actively participated. Proving you weren't aware of the crime is a nigh impossible thing, if the prosecutors can link you in time and place at all. It's a bastardization of "innocent until proven guilty" -- you're literally treated as if you were aware of the crime unless you can prove you were not -- "guilty until proven innocent" comes to mind.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
|