[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I said "the definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear". It's not at the time of conviction, it's at the time when the act adjudged to be criminal occurred.

Or are you confusing when a crime has been comitted with if a crime has been comitted? The if question is settled by the operation of the legal system

Well, this is not "pretty clear", but it moves the conversation along.

I'm sorry you're confused. Naturally, the answer to the question of "if" must precede the answer to the question of "when". That answer may be obvious, but often it is not. The answer may also render moot the question of "when". Is that clearer for you?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear. When a conviction happens is clear too. And when appeals are exhausted.

Ok, these simplifications are ... somewhat helpful. Let me recast my remarks, which you selectively answered. When an "act" happens is pretty clear. When it is adjudged to criminal, what happens to that act? What happens to that "act" if the decision is otherwise? It's clear that the act doesn't change, but our decision as to it's legality is a separate process that happens later. This difference is at the heart of our system of due process. It is the manifestation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. Especially concerning the part of the conversation that prompted me to jump in.

This section:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

best to err on the side of caution.

is what I was responding to when I tried to give my understanding of each side's thoughts. I would like to hear your answer to 9th's proposition.