This sidemission has been criticized and ridiculed, and rightly so. It's the worst bit of writing in the game. They present it as a moral dilemma with no right choice, but the right choice is very obvious and they just didn't make it available for the player to choose. The best way to deal with this missions is to just not accept it. I hope they fix it in a patch.
Lots of quest in general are not well written and think someone with a very liberal view of law and order wrote the various crime related quest. I was also thinking to myself during my playthrough that it cant be right. Some of the Exiles were forced off the station for much less! Also the pregnant woman, she stole stuff from the colonies and placed the nexus in danger(if the Kett or Roakkar got her codes that would have been real bad), and yet she got a congratulations on your new born, you get to live on eos or nexus? Addison got away scott free with the 3 sabres thing and Tann got away with general gross incompetence.
At first I was cranky, but then I just had to laugh at it. "Game, are you telling me attempted murder isn't a crime that is also a banishable offence? That, to exonerate him of the actual murder, he cannot be tried again for a different charge?" I'm not letting somebody who will shoot their friends when they're stressed go free. Friendly fire is bad enough when we all pile out of the Nomad as it is.
If they wanted to make it a moral dilemma they should of somehow made his first trial unjust/unfair. I "solved" it by not completing the quest. Game can sort it out. 👮
Actually, they chose to be exiled rather than to go back into cryo and to have a punishment after everything calmed down.
@arthurh3535 wrote:
Actually, the chose to be exiled rather than to go back into cryo and to have a punishment after everything calmed down.
Not sure they made the outcome clear; does it say in the log afterward? Not finishing it kinda leaves it hanging.
If he were part of the first series crew he would of spent the entirety of three games trying to shoot me. 🥳 Renegade, or even Paragon Shep, would of solved this 'crime' on the spot.
It's not following an indepth procedural system. It reminds me more of a martial law with maybe a quick officers court. In 10 years it'll be decried as not following procedure.
@arthurh3535 wrote:It's not following an indepth procedural system. It reminds me more of a martial law with maybe a quick officers court. In 10 years it'll be decried as not following procedure.
Yup looking at Spender's "Trial", his trial is more like a boy being questioned by his teachers!
@CasperTheLich wrote:actually, does being falsely convicted of murder and then exonerated, make being retried for the attempted murder of the same person during the same incident double-jeopardy, legally speaking?
No, they are two different crimes. Even in a system where double jeopardy could be an issue claiming innocence of one crime because you were busy committing a different crime will not keep you from being charged with the other one if acquitted/exonerated of the first.
@jpcerutti1 wrote:
@CasperTheLich wrote:actually, does being falsely convicted of murder and then exonerated, make being retried for the attempted murder of the same person during the same incident double-jeopardy, legally speaking?
No, they are two different crimes. Even in a system where double jeopardy could be an issue claiming innocence of one crime because you were busy committing a different crime will not keep you from being charged with the other one if acquitted/exonerated of the first.
Although you could get off anyway if you can prove they violated your 5th Amendment rights in the process
That assumes that the Nexus doesn't have the authority to try him for murder (attempted or successful). He committed a crime, so detaining him is pretty lawful.
@jpcerutti1 wrote:
@CasperTheLich wrote:actually, does being falsely convicted of murder and then exonerated, make being retried for the attempted murder of the same person during the same incident double-jeopardy, legally speaking?
No, they are two different crimes. Even in a system where double jeopardy could be an issue claiming innocence of one crime because you were busy committing a different crime will not keep you from being charged with the other one if acquitted/exonerated of the first.
I respectfully disagree.
Nilken was already convicted by the time Ryder arrives on scene. The latest he could have been charged with attempted murder would be later in the trial once the jury is deciding their verdict. The jury is able to acquit him of the murder charge, but find him guilty of the lesser charge of attempted murder at that point, but no later. Exonerating him and then attempting to put him on trial for essentially the same crime, but by using a lesser included offense, would be considered Double Jeopardy.
That's assuming Double Jeopardy is a thing on-board the Nexus. We don't know if they are using Alliance law or attempting to implement a new system of law in Andromeda.
@Stubbs-WH wrote:I respectfully disagree.
Nilken was already convicted by the time Ryder arrives on scene. The latest he could have been charged with attempted murder would be later in the trial once the jury is deciding their verdict. The jury is able to acquit him of the murder charge, but find him guilty of the lesser charge of attempted murder at that point, but no later. Exonerating him and then attempting to put him on trial for essentially the same crime, but by using a lesser included offense, would be considered Double Jeopardy.
That's assuming Double Jeopardy is a thing on-board the Nexus. We don't know if they are using Alliance law or attempting to implement a new system of law in Andromeda.
The Initiative has its own legal code. It's called Tann's Law.
@fudgietroll wrote:
@Stubbs-WH wrote:I respectfully disagree.
Nilken was already convicted by the time Ryder arrives on scene. The latest he could have been charged with attempted murder would be later in the trial once the jury is deciding their verdict. The jury is able to acquit him of the murder charge, but find him guilty of the lesser charge of attempted murder at that point, but no later. Exonerating him and then attempting to put him on trial for essentially the same crime, but by using a lesser included offense, would be considered Double Jeopardy.
That's assuming Double Jeopardy is a thing on-board the Nexus. We don't know if they are using Alliance law or attempting to implement a new system of law in Andromeda.
The Initiative has its own legal code. It's called Tann's Law.
Fair enough. 🙂
5th amendment? Double Jeopardy? You do realise that those are american laws and these are not even applicable even on other part of the current planet earth lol
In the ME universe(not MEA, before the angarians), humanity is the newest species to join the club, I seriously doubt our current laws would have any application there. However there's always the greater law of fairness and of justice(although an asari justicar would have slayed all of them, Tann included, should have smuggled one on board!) lol.
@Stubbs-WH wrote:
Double Jeopardy isn't exclusively an American law. Canada, Mexico, and every member of the European Council (which is pretty much every European nation) have some form of Double Jeopardy protection in place.
Yup but that's approximately 20% the current worlds population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population
Agreed with the rest of the points though.
@VladVonCastein wrote:
@Stubbs-WH wrote:
Double Jeopardy isn't exclusively an American law. Canada, Mexico, and every member of the European Council (which is pretty much every European nation) have some form of Double Jeopardy protection in place.Yup but that's approximately 20% the current worlds population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population
Agreed with the rest of the points though.
I was just stating that the Double Jeopardy law isn't merely located in America.
I understand that a majority of the world may not necessarily have the same laws in effect, but you're going to see Western ideas about law discussed on an English speaking board with a game created by Western developers, who (in my opinion) geared the game towards a Western audience.
@Stubbs-WH wrote:
@VladVonCastein wrote:
@Stubbs-WH wrote:
Double Jeopardy isn't exclusively an American law. Canada, Mexico, and every member of the European Council (which is pretty much every European nation) have some form of Double Jeopardy protection in place.Yup but that's approximately 20% the current worlds population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population
Agreed with the rest of the points though.
I was just stating that the Double Jeopardy law isn't merely located in America.
I understand that a majority of the world may not necessarily have the same laws in effect, but you're going to see Western ideas about law discussed on an English speaking board with a game created by Western developers, who (in my opinion) geared the game towards a Western audience.
Ah that's a totally different story, then it's not about global/galactic law but about target audiences of a game and guess I can agree with that.
@VladVonCastein wrote:
@Stubbs-WH wrote:
@VladVonCastein wrote:
@Stubbs-WH wrote:
Double Jeopardy isn't exclusively an American law. Canada, Mexico, and every member of the European Council (which is pretty much every European nation) have some form of Double Jeopardy protection in place.Yup but that's approximately 20% the current worlds population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population
Agreed with the rest of the points though.
I was just stating that the Double Jeopardy law isn't merely located in America.
I understand that a majority of the world may not necessarily have the same laws in effect, but you're going to see Western ideas about law discussed on an English speaking board with a game created by Western developers, who (in my opinion) geared the game towards a Western audience.
Ah that's a totally different story, then it's not about global/galactic law but about target audiences of a game and guess I can agree with that.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to argue global/galactic law. I couldn't figure out how to quote (Figured it would do it automatically with the reply option on people's posts, lol) which probably helped add to the confusion, sorry about that. My post about Double Jeopardy (before we started replaying to one another) was directed at someone on the first page saying that it if Double Jeopardy existed in this universe that it wouldn't apply to Rensus Nilken's case.
@fudgietroll wrote:
@jpcerutti1 wrote:
@CasperTheLich wrote:actually, does being falsely convicted of murder and then exonerated, make being retried for the attempted murder of the same person during the same incident double-jeopardy, legally speaking?
No, they are two different crimes. Even in a system where double jeopardy could be an issue claiming innocence of one crime because you were busy committing a different crime will not keep you from being charged with the other one if acquitted/exonerated of the first.
Although you could get off anyway if you can prove they violated your 5th Amendment rights in the process
Double jeopardy is where you can't be convicted of the same crime twice- once you have been convicted and served your time you cant then be conviced and serve a different punishment for that same crime. There is a movie about this where someone's husband fakes his death and she gets convicted of his murder and serves her time. He was a real *, set it all up for a change of identity so he could take their kid and live with her sister. Later on she is able to outright kill him when she tracks him down - and not be convicted because she already served her time for killing him to begin with.
As for this quest in game.. the moral dilema I saw here was not one of him comitting a crime, it was obvious he did but the circumstances that lead to him pulling the trigger. They all knew following his order was going to get them all killed. Was he really supposed to sit back and let everyone die because of one idiot giving a wrong order, or deal with the idiot before that could happen. That is the reason why I feel letting him off free really should have been the best choice, only it didn't work out that way, making exhile the better choice. There is rare times when following a direct order isn't in everyones best interest, some mutinies have merit and sometimes force has to be used.
That wouldn't be a case of double jeopardy either. Otherwise you could never get convicted of a traffic offense twice in your life...
I'll stand behind that attempted murder conviction with a prison sentence to be served after cryo, IMO.
@arthurh3535 wrote:That wouldn't be a case of double jeopardy either. Otherwise you could never get convicted of a traffic offense twice in your life...
I'll stand behind that attempted murder conviction with a prison sentence to be served after cryo, IMO.
No no, I mean the same crime. Not going out running a red light .. then going out and doing it again.. thats two seperate crimes..
However, she already served time for killing him .. and was released.. you can't kill someone twice.. dead is dead. So in this case it was the *same* crime because the first time she was innocent. Thus she already served a sentence for that crime and didn’t have to serve it a second time.
@Nykara360 wrote:No no, I mean the same crime. Not going out running a red light .. then going out and doing it again.. thats two seperate crimes..However, she already served time for killing him .. and was released.. you can't kill someone twice.. dead is dead. So in this case it was the *same* crime because the first time she was innocent. Thus she already served a sentence for that crime and didn’t have to serve it a second time.
No, because it's at a later date, a different situation. The only difference is that you have come to realize you failed to succeed the first time. It's not just 'killed Bob' it's 'killed Bob on Tuesday' vs. 'actually killed Bob on Thursday'.
double jeopardy prevents someone from being tried for the same crime more then once. it doesn't prevent someone from being tried for committing the same crime repeatedly, just from being tried for the same crime repeatedly.
for instance if someone is tried for 1st degree premeditated murder, and say, acquitted... you can't comeback and try charging him with 2nd degree murder and then manslaughter to get another go or 2 at that same crime, even if you can make a go at reorganizing the case for it. double-jeopardy has already attached. that's why i figured he couldn't be recharged/reindited for attempted murder for the same incident. having been already tried and convicted, and then exonerated.
The thing is, he's guilty. He tried to kill the security officer. He thought he succeeded. Someone just happened to kill his target before he missed (and probably would have tried again). He willfully pulled the trigger in the attempt.
