A hypothetical arson question?
I sometimes watch crime shows, so I wondered about something. if an arsonist: >used cash when buying supplies instead of a credit card >used a cigarette lighter and a cigarette (or a small twig from a tree) >and just tossed it onto the property and it's still on fire if it would start a fire >and leave the scene without looking conspicuous if all these things worked, would the arsonist have gotten away with the perfect arson? I watched some crime shows where the arsonist always makes a small mistake
Hi can you please read my persuasive essay and told me any grammar errors, or if needs something else. Thanks?
...Willingham was complaining and crying out for a nurse to help him because of the pain from his extremely minor *wound/injury*. ...demonstrated that he was guilty because he didn’t even care that his children were *dead*. ...to his parents that there was something about the day of the fire he had lied about*:* he said (admitted?) that he had never actually crawled into the children’s room. Therefore*,* the state of *Texas* should keep the death penalty... I would also find a new word other than "sociopath" to subsitute in a few occasions. Your use of it became repetitive. I would also do the same for "said" in the fourth paragraph. Lastly, I would reword the hypothetical question in the second to last paragraph to avoid making a question. Leave it as a statement. All in all, not a bad essay. Just some minor corrections and advice, not anything that offended my eyes to read.
Why does Israel destroy the homes of Palestinian terrorists in addition to imprisoning them, while it doesn't do the same to the Israeli terrorists, like the ones who burned Mohammed Abu Khdeir alive?
It's a question that brings up the function of deterrence in a civilized judicial system.When someone is so determined to commit an act of terrorism that he's willing to sacrifice his own life, what can possibly be an effective form of deterrence? Capital punishment? Israel doesn't have it, and even if it did, it's a laughable response to someone who is willing to commit suicide. Life in prison? Most terrorists at this point have convinced themselves (with justification) that any prison sentence is temporary, and that they will be freed in the next prisoner exchange. Remember, even Samir Kuntar got out.Letting them know that after their suicidal attack, their families will be homeless, there's some degree of deterrence. Though on the other hand, these terror groups do a pretty good job of caring for the families that it's pretty much lost its effect as well.Jewish terrorists, on the other hand, don't show the same degree of ideological fanaticism. The three guys who killed Mohammed Abu Khdeir seem to have been motivated by revenge, did not have the backing of an ideological terror group, and hoped to get away with it without being caught. They were not suicidal. A trial and a (very long, if not life-long) prison term will be sufficient to reasonably convince others that justice has been served.It's certainly an imperfect solution, and not entirely just. Without the context of the war and events surrounding these destructions, they would be very hard to justify.
How do I anonymously report someone to the FBI?
Just don’t give them your name and tell them you want to remain anonymous.At a certain level in gravity of the circumstances, I’d also be cautious about what means you use to communicate with them. If you are seriously concerned about your identity being discovered then it’s better to take unnecessary proactive measures than it is to try to implement them once they've become necessary.Normally, I wouldn’t have much concern that law enforcement would backtrack your report to figure out who you are but I’m guessing it’s a pretty serious issue if you’re thinking the FBI would be concerned (it’s pretty unlikely they’ll do anything unless it’s something impossible to ignore).By remaining anonymous you aren’t going to give them very much to work with. Even if you’re reporting something really serious, the fact that you refuse any accountability for the information creates a really shakey foundation to premise a serious investigation on.The fact that they can’t even prove you exist means that basically anything you tell them will have to be discovered by some means that is totally independent of your report to them. In some cases that might be impossible. In any case it’s gonna require a lot more time and resources than it otherwise might if you just went on record.It’s very unlikely to be the case but I have to imagine that if knowing your identity was somehow critical to national security, they wouldn’t have a lot of options. They would have to weigh the potential consequences of doing nothing against those for betraying your confidence.Mostly, I think you should just go on record and report the information you have. If that’s not something you’re willing to do though, and anonymity is crucial to your making the report, then I would use the tips-line information provided to you in the other answers. Additionally, I would take extra precautions surrouding the means of communication you use to contact the FBI. For example: don’t call them from your home phone, don’t file an online report from your desktop computer, don’t buy a burner phone with your credit card, etc.Anyhow, hopefully this question isn’t regarding anything serious and these are all just hypothetical musings. Also, hopefully you aren’t asking because you want to make false reports or anything f’d up like that.
If polygraph tests were 100% accurate, would it be a good idea to force all criminal suspects to take one?
If the moon were made of green cheese, would it be a good idea to eat it?Polygraphs are not 100% accurate. They are at best, in expert hands, 50% accurate. And, no, it would be a terrible idea. Our justice system is not based on forcing suspects to confess. It is based upon forcing the state to make its case against the suspect. Defendants do not know the law, and can be coerced into confessing to things of which they are not guilty.