Have you ever wondered what would happen if one conjoined twin committed a crime, but the other was innocent? This is a thought-experiment occasionally encountered in Law schools. To paraphrase English jurist William Blackstone, “It is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent suffer.”
The issue of determining how to punish the perpetrator without wrongfully punishing an innocent party has been contemplated by legal experts around the world. It is not overly challenging when considering a relatively minor crime (e.g., petty theft). Although the crime prosecuted is not necessarily easily resolved - such a scenario does not constitute deprivation of either party of their freedom or life. However, even a fine assessed against an innocent party would constitute, if not cruel, at least unusual punishment.
What would you do if tasked with deciding a case in which only one of the conjoined twins committed murder? Would you be justified in assigning, at a minimum, a charge of co-conspiracy against the conjoined twin for merely being present at the time of the murder? Mere presence, absent some indicia of either aiding or abetting, to include encouragement, what justifies the filing of criminal charges against both parties?
Further complicating the matter is a consideration of rights against self-incrimination. The 5th Amendment, in addition to other things, protects against self-incrimination. In light of the fact that the innocent twin is innocently linked to the guilty twin and would undoubtedly suffer any punishment imposed upon that guilty twin, does the 5th Amendment vitiate the duty of the innocent party to assist in prosecuting the crime?
If the prosecution were to pursue both twins and circumstances were such that the trials should be severed, how could this occur? Judicial economy does not necessarily trump the right/demand that individuals be tried separately. Even a charge of either co-conspiracy or accessory to a crime may not preclude the propriety of separate trials. What safeguards may be reasonably employed to avoid having the jury impute the guilt of one to the other?
One of the best known examples involving conjoined twins Lazarus and Joannes (“John”) Baptista (named after John the Baptist) Colloredo. The twins were employed in a carnival sideshow in the 1600s. The account is related as one in which Lazarus killed a drunken man who accosted the twins.
The matter is further compounded by the following: (1) John was a “parasitic” twin (i.e., this occurs when an embryo begins to split, but does not complete the process - one sibling stops growing, resulting in a part of the twin parasitizing the other); (2) John did not speak, kept his eyes closed and mouth open all the time. John’s head, upper body and left leg protruded from his brother’s belly.
The complete disposition of this case is not known. However, historians inform us that the courts, having found Lazarus guilty of murder, were unwilling to execute him because this would inexorably result in John’s execution, as well. The exact dates of death are unknown.
There is another case involving Chang and Eng Bunker. Although this case involves an incident that allegedly occurred in America, the twins were from Siam. They gave rise to the term “Siamese” twins. The incident apparently involved an incident in which a spectator attending one of their exhibitions too-forcefully squeezed Chang’s hand. In response to this affront, Chang punched the spectator.
Chang was charged with assault. However, the presiding judge ruled that although Chang should be sentenced to jail, doing so would be cruel and unusual punishment imposed upon Eng.
Eng enjoyed robust health toward the end of his life. Chang, on the other hand, suffered a stroke, paralyzing the right side of his body. For the remainder of his life, his right leg needed to be suspended in a sling.
Historians tell us : “Early in the morning of January 17, one of Eng’s sons checked on the sleeping twins. ‘Uncle Chang is dead,’ the boy reportedly told Eng, who responded, ‘Then I am going!’” Eng died within a few hours of his brother’s death.
Chang’s and Eng’s deaths demonstrate how inexorably linked such twins are. In reflecting upon this, a fair arbiter must tread carefully when analyzing cases involving two very closely linked parties, only one of whom is directly involved in the commission of the crime under consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment