Was it even justified?
>>220504358you mean legally?
>>220504358Former ICJ judge here. Technically, he can be charged with taking people from one location to another one without their explicit will and signature. It is also true that he can be charged with putting people in situations that bear the risk of bodily injury and potentially fatal consequences. However, and this is important in understanding how such people are convicted. Jigsaw's intentions also fall into the equation which means that he a) intends to teach his "victims" a lesson for life and thus make them better persons, b) he gives them explicit instructions how to learn that lesson and c) he acts without malice.Moreover, on the aspect of kidnapping. Evidence obviously would show that he is too frail to actively kidnap someone, ergo this would be instantly dropped in a serious court.The chances of him being convicted of murder, let alone kidnapping are extremely low, 0.5% tops.
>>220504414seems like bullshit to me
they call him John Kramer because he crams people into his traps
>>220504358If you put someone through an episode of Fear Factor without them signing a consent form you would be charged with attempted murder, and that’s what Jigsaw always did.
Now that the dust has settled, it doesn't take a supreme court justice to figure out that Jigsaw simply outplayed the legal system. He wouldn't even stand trial and if he somehow ended up under arrest, any sane judge would set him free and the police officers would be sued and fired. This is a truly one of a kind character, it took many genius writers to present an innocent man as a "serial killer", but the truth is - he never killed anyone. All of his victims were presented with a choice "live or die", this means any deaths that happened during Kramer's "games" were voluntary and therefore are legally considered a suicide. If you can't grasp this subtle meta-commentary on our present legal system, you were filtered and should probably go back to watching some low quality horror slop.
>>220504358Former prosecutor here. These films were shown in law school as a way to get discussion going as to the nuances and gray areas in law. They were meant to provoke debate but frankly there's no debate to be had. We ran hundreds of simulations, prosecuting Jigsaw from every angle you can think of, and guess what? Jigsaw walked. Every time. The legal precision these movies have is like nothing I've ever seen. Nobody would take this case and risk losing their legal license. If I were to attempt to prosecute Jigsaw I would be laughed out of the court..
>>220504666if jigsaw says he did sign a form but they were destroyed in a trap event going wrong, it becomes his word against their word. In a court of law, the doubt must benefit the accused. He walks 9 times out of 10.
>>220504721He walks 9 times out of 10 because the one time he doesn't, the judge actually resigns and decides that Kramer should take his place.
>>220504414He would be fined for placing people in hazardous working conditions without safety instruction and equipment.
>>220504713Was in the same class. Can confirm.
>>220504358There were a couple huge asshole victims like the serial rapist and that woman who killed her baby and gas lit her husband into thinking he did it.
These can be fun threads because you have people coming up with novel legal Concepts.
>>220504358justification is for pussies and womenLife fucked him over and so he was going to get his own justice
>>220504713My class was shown the same films and Jigsaw might have been prosecuted on OSHA violations because the so called victims were promised a reward in exchange for their labor along with a dirty workplace for them to perform their labor. It would have amounted to around $500 worth of fines but outside of that he’s innocent.
I mean, just look at all the close associates of Epstein. It is clear that there is no ground for conviction when there is this degree of separation from the criminal act itself. Providing the means is not illegal.
