If you admit to a crime you ddin't commit (i.e. John mark Carr) why can't u be convicted anyway?
So if you admit to a crime you didn't commit, why can't they still convict you simply based on your testimony?
Answers:
You can be convicted of that crime, but not if there is evidence that you are not the criminal.
In JMC's case -- he was out of the state at the time, and there was proof -- good proof -- of that.
He can, however, be convicted of other crimes, such as lying in a police investigation.
I wish they would put him away though -- he is obviously a nut job.
If there were no other evidence, they probably would. If there is evidence proving you did not commit the crime, then it would be a perversion of justice, and a waste of taxpayers money.
Because you haven't broken the law, other that perhaps filing a false police report (your confession) and perhaps perjury (if you repeated the confession in court). If you didn't commit the underlying crime then they can't, and shouldn't, send you to prison for something you didn't do.
They can't do it because they would be comitting a fraud if they persude the charges knowing you where lying about doing the crime.
One can be convicted. However, a prosecutor has an ethical obligation not to seek a conviction on someone he believes to be innocent. If that prosecutor had sought a conviction, a confession plus evidence that the crime had been committed by someone would be enough to support a conviction.
they can't convict you because you didn't commit the crime, and if they have reason to believe your testimony is false, they will not convict you. the point of making a conviction is to send the perpetrator to jail, not some crazy fool that for some reason, wants to go to jail for something he isnt guilty of.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: