a murderer

wrote a letter to the family

and got tried again

because new evidence surfaced

the letter

cant be treied with the same evidence again

but if new evidence arised

fair game

Oh Jesus Christ, write all once, not. One. Word. At. A. Time.

just look at it as a cracked out haikou

Once a trial is over, irrespective of in later coming out what motivated the crime in question, they can't be tried again.
Separating intent from the crime doesn't mean you can be tried for the same crime twice. Emmit Till (probably spelling that wrong) demonstrates this.

the letter provided additional details pertaining to the case

if additional evidence arises they can be prosecuted again for the same exact crime

@Diddycon oh no, I'm not arguing with you. You're right. The reasoning behind a crime being committed isn't enough evidence for charging someone, which is why I can't really chsrged for beating up my neighbor, even though we have had property disputes (he was bratenbup a few months ago. I'd have motivation, but motivation!=solid evidence)

I was agreeing. Intent doesn't mean that much

Then it shouldnt be a crime to have intent

Disagree. Establishing intent or motivation gives you the people you need to start looking at.

motive means and opportunity!

Already covered by the degree of crime system

and if i accidently run over a baby running across the street. its not the same as if i pull on the curb and run over a baby on purpose

either way the baby is dead

Charging for intent serves no purpose other than to increase sentencing for the same crime

but the crime is different

intent is paramount in determining the degree of justice ( sentencing)

Agreed, but intent shouldnt be a separate crime

Intent is part of the case and proving guilt. It shouldnt be a seperate crime

if a crime is foiled what would they be charged with?

attempted =/ intent is what ur suggesting?

I literally said that you can't charge someone with intent alone (there are acceptions, like conspiracy to commit certain crimes, but, "intent", is used in a different context, there). Separating intent from a crime does not set a dangerous, Fifth-Amendment-circumventing situation where you can be charged with the same crime twice.

Attempt

id argue attempt suggests intent

And attempt is a violation of law

The intent is not the violation of law

If you kill a guy and are charged with killing and hate, what purpose does the hate charge serve?

i see what your saying

hate crime is weird is general

legally speaking

If your not guilty of murder can you still be charged with hate?

cuz a lot of that is subjective

If yes you are in double jeopardy

If no the hate only serves to punish you for the same crime twice, double punishment