It’ll be a split decision.
Made me chuckle… And people are sleeping here, dammit!
Are they rich and white?
One is…
lmfao
Interesting question!
It seems to also show up in the first episode of American Horror Story: Freak Show [2].
After thinking a bit on it and reading about it, I would go with neither would go to jail.
It is better for a criminal to get away with murder than to have an innocent person go to jail for that crime.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
AKA Blackstone’s ratio
There are some other possible solutions to the problem, however. You might throw both twins in prison but treat only the guilty one as if he were a convict. When the siblings were released, for example, the good twin would have all the rights of a normal citizen, while the evil twin would have lost the right to vote, be registered as a sex offender, etc. You might even compensate the good twin according to the relevant payout rules for wrongful convictions. (Those who were wrongly incarcerated for a federal crime can get up to $50,000 per year, or $100,000 if they were on death row.)
All of the above assumes that one twin is unambiguously guilty, and the other is unambiguously innocent. In real life, it’s hard to imagine such a clear-cut case. For example, a jury might be inclined to believe that the “good” twin acted as an accomplice, or perhaps an accessory, to the crime after the fact. This charge would apply if one sibling knew that the other had committed a crime—which seems likely under any circumstances—and that he intentionally provided assistance or comfort to his sibling rather than calling the police at the first opportunity. If the good twin were convicted of an accessory crime in federal court, he’d be subject to at most half the prison term appropriate to his evil brother. In some states, however, it’s legal to harbor a fugitive if that person happens to be your sibling.
One more way that a “good” twin might be convicted, even if he took no part in the actual committing of the crime: In some states, he might be found guilty of not stopping his brother. Although as a general rule, common-law tradition dictates that you can’t be held accountable for something you didn’t do, 10 states have so-called “duty to rescue” statutes. These require innocent bystanders to call the police or reasonably attempt to aid a victim in distress. (In four of these states, siblings of the offender are exempt from the law.) If one twin tried to stab someone, the other might be expected to grab his arm or drag both of them to the ground. The penalty for failing to rescue is usually a fine, though some jurisdictions allow for up to a year in prison.
I believe that within our Constitutional framework, the only thing to be done in this situation is to release the conjoined twins. Even if the jury sentenced the conjoined twins to death, the court would have to commute the sentence and release the twins. The guarantees of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit punishing an innocent actor.
He asks the important question: “Which do we hold higher, the punishment of an innocent life or freeing a guilty one?”
But in practice we throw innocent people in prison all the time in the USA.
Cool. Their answer was way better though.
Well there’s at least one example out there of one identical twin committing a crime but since neither would admit it was them, they had to let them go free. I didn’t remember if there was a trial or just that they knew they couldn’t effectively prosecute them without knowing.
Something like that might be the result here.
I’d say nobody. Not putting innocent people in jail is more important than punishing criminals imo. But idk what to do with the guilty half instead.
Not disagreeing but I don’t think it’s appropriate to refer to one twin as a “half”
Afaik it’s pretty common to call twin
ks “halfs”, conjoined or not. I’m a twin, and I’ve been asked about “my other half” my whole life. Same thing with couples, or any two people who are perceived as belonging together for some reason.It’s half a set of twins. It’s okay.
I don’t speak for my clone, let alone all twins. But I don’t care. I rode a bike down the side of a highway with no helmet as the logging trucks passed us by: this label will not hurt me.
The person per person count is slightly skewed for conjoined twins :)
I think it should depend on the conjoined twin capacity to prevent the murder.
If he had enough control over the body but didn’t try to stop the murder he should be at least held a little responsible.
If he wouldn’t have been able to prevent the murder then he’s just a witness and shouldn’t be put in jail no matter what.
And now I wonder what would happen if the conjoined twin could be sentenced to death.
Massively convoluted plan to get bodily autonomy
Well they just are extra not allowed to commit crimes. Like way more than other people.
deleted by creator
You.
I like you.
(For you downvoters, OP formed the question in an ambiguous way. I highly recommend watching the movie Clue to see this gag used repeatedly to good effect).
Thanks for explaining a joke that has been running around forever.
I think the human rights of the assailant always outweigh those of the victim in these situations. Neither of them goes to prison.
You definitely misread the question but personally I would love to know what you thought it was.
Irony.
Don’t they both have control of half the body? So it’s not really possible
Happens in many different ways actually. It’s rarely a 50/50 split too. So it’s possible.
Being a head stuck on someone else’s body sounds horrifying
Assuming it is ever right to cage a human as punishment, i guess one would need a special room on the exterior wall of the prison.
Inside the room (and prison?) both are unencumbered (the free one is just visiting for the twins sake), but in order to leave (as one has the right to) the other must don one of those shrouds from the Foundation series.
Probably a typo, but just in case: you don clothing.
Thank you for your service.
