Thanks! And I am looking forward to your thoughts on US v Robertson argument if you are able to share them. I'm not an expert, but I thought Pan's opinion in Fischer was very strong (with Walker agreeing with nearly all of it).
Yet, it seems as a problematic case, because of using prosecutorial prohibited aggregation:
Suppose raping. One person, rapes a woman. Violently. Using threats etc.... You can't indict him for simple assault ( adding it I mean, to raping) Why ? Because the element of physicals assault, is folded withing the rape itself. So, punishment for example, would anyway take to account, the element of physical assault.
So, as well here one may argue:
When dealing with corruption, we don't deal with physical violent. But, intellectual, verbal, manipulative rhetoric or action. Not pure violence. Unless maybe, the violence, was vis a vis the proceedings themselves. But rioters, didn't really aim the proceedings. Really and directly so I mean. But rather, acting like hooligans, head on. Under the sun. Not secretly. Not in a classic manipulative manner or maneuver.
And indeed, the section, deals with records. evidences, or influencing etc.... But not such level of violence, openly, and far from touching or being able of touching directly the proceeding at issue (as such, they couldn't have the intent even. Because of simple knowledge, that it wouldn't work).
So, yes, not squarely touching the definition of corruption, but, yes, it should be situated here, front and center. Otherwise, it looks like prosecutorial prohibited aggregation with all due respect.
Thanks! And I am looking forward to your thoughts on US v Robertson argument if you are able to share them. I'm not an expert, but I thought Pan's opinion in Fischer was very strong (with Walker agreeing with nearly all of it).
Great post.
Yet, it seems as a problematic case, because of using prosecutorial prohibited aggregation:
Suppose raping. One person, rapes a woman. Violently. Using threats etc.... You can't indict him for simple assault ( adding it I mean, to raping) Why ? Because the element of physicals assault, is folded withing the rape itself. So, punishment for example, would anyway take to account, the element of physical assault.
So, as well here one may argue:
When dealing with corruption, we don't deal with physical violent. But, intellectual, verbal, manipulative rhetoric or action. Not pure violence. Unless maybe, the violence, was vis a vis the proceedings themselves. But rioters, didn't really aim the proceedings. Really and directly so I mean. But rather, acting like hooligans, head on. Under the sun. Not secretly. Not in a classic manipulative manner or maneuver.
And indeed, the section, deals with records. evidences, or influencing etc.... But not such level of violence, openly, and far from touching or being able of touching directly the proceeding at issue (as such, they couldn't have the intent even. Because of simple knowledge, that it wouldn't work).
So, yes, not squarely touching the definition of corruption, but, yes, it should be situated here, front and center. Otherwise, it looks like prosecutorial prohibited aggregation with all due respect.
Thanks