Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
It appears I'm not the only one to find this confusing...
|
On your first point, about trying someone as an accessory without trying the primary offender - I'm a lawyer, and I don't see any problem with it. My wife is also a lawyer, in a different field of practice, and I just asked her about it, & her reaction is the same as mine. The primary offender might be dead, or have fled the country, or legally immune - say, a member of a foreign embassy.
On your second point, the professor's point may be more subtle than you realize. His point seems to be that there is NO primary offender. I say "seems to be" because some of the later part of the quote appears to contradict that assumption.
But
no primary offender is a little different than not prosecuting an
actually existing primary offender.