Why is Pat Robertson not quilty of this crime?

[Lochloosa]

(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct
constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against property or against the person
of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under
circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage
in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum
term of imprisonment:shrug:






From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access


January 7, 2003 and February 12, 2003]



TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY

Sec. 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct
constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against property or against the person
of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under
circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage
in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum
term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more
than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the
crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by
life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty
years.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section
that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete
renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the
commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not ``voluntary and
complete'' if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to
postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute
another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises
the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of
proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the
person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked
the state of mind required for its commission, because he was
incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution
or is not subject to prosecution.

(Added Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 1003(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat.
2138; amended Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 26, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3597;
Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108
Stat. 2148.)


Amendments

1994--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-322 inserted ``(notwithstanding
section 3571)'' before ``fined not more than one-half''.
1986--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99-646 substituted ``property or against
the person of another'' for ``the person or property of another'' and
inserted ``life imprisonment or'' before ``death''.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC373

:shrug:

[whatever4]

1. Because he has low friends in high places nm

[Dhalgren]

2. In a fair and practicing democracy, he should be indicted and

placed on trial. But in Fascist America there is a certain element of the populace who are exempt from prosecution...

[eallen]

3. Who was the hitman that Robertson solicited?

That statute covers a mafiosa boss ordering a hit. But Robertson wasn't in a circumstance where he thought some specific person would carry out his wishes.

Robertson is about as wacky a fundamentalist preacher as there is. But I don't think his public wish that the US assassinate Chavez constituted a crime.

[Lochloosa]

7. I believe the "hitman" was "we" as in the US Government

Why does it require a "specific person"


"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

[eallen]

9. "Solicits, commands, induces or ... persuade such other person"

More generally, it is a feature of our justice system that the elements of a crime must be specifically proven. A prosecutor doesn't go into court to show that the accused is a murderer. He goes into court to show that on or about a specific date, the accused perform specific acts, meeting all the specific elements of a crime, which in the case of murder includes a specific person or persons killed. That doesn't require identification by name. In the case of murder, sometimes all the prosecutor has is an unidentified corpse, or just a description of the victim. But there has to be evidence that a specific person was killed by specific act.

For solicitation, the prosecutor has to show that a specific someone was solicited, that "such other person" as described in the statute quoted. A wish that a vague someone would do something doesn't count.

Nor should it! If Robertson were arrested for what he said, the ACLU should and would come to his defense. A statute that prohibited such statements would be both unconstitutionally vague, and dangerously infringing on the first amendment.

Robertson is guilty of being a jackass. Many times over. But he shouldn't be prosecuted for what he said. And I wouldn't want to live in a nation whose justice system allowed that.

[Lochloosa]

10. Good argument...and most likely correct...

[neoteric lefty]

12. hit the head on the nail nt

[lynne]

13. You are 100% correct. Robertson is guilty of being a Jackass -

- and nothing more as there was no solicitation, command or inducement in the crapola that he spouted.

And its a GOOD thing that people aren't prosecuted for spouting off hare-brained opinions or all these online forums would be empty. :-)

[autorank]

4. "a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent" - Recommend

Well, now that would be interesting. He'd have to do a, Pat pardon the phrase, mea culpa.

[dajoki]

5. same reason limpballs...

isn't up the river. they know the RIGHTwing people.

[Double T]

6. Pat Robertson is not guilty of a crime because he falls under......

the 'friends of bush amnesty program' for criminal corporate and religious leaders. Ken Lay and Pat Robertson are their two (2) poster crooks.

[onenote]

8. this one is more interesting than most but still may not apply

but I still don't know if it applies. Apart from the issue of whether Robertson's statment that "I think" the US govt should assassinate Chavez is covered by the statute (which could go either way in my opinon), there is the issue of whether assassinating Chavez would be a felony. I know that Executive Order 12333 states that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination" but I don't know that there is any provision in the criminal code that makes a violation of this order a felony. So that might be a hurdle, since ordinarily when a US citizen kills someone abroad it isn't a violation of US law. (And as discussed in other threads, section 112 of title 18 of the US Code, which makes it a crime to assault or harm a foreign official, by definition does not apply to actions taken outside the US.

onenote

[renie408]

11. I think he is exempt from prosecution...

because he falls under the category of 'mentally unfit' to stand trial. I think he probably lacks the ability to understand that his behavior was wrong. See, he thinks he is the Right Hand of God, and therefore, he thinks anything he does MUST be right. That qualifies as deranged, right?