Sebastian
No we're not. Let's follow the process:
1. Someone acts in a way that is defined in law as a crime. Two options:
a) They get reported/caught and convicted - result: a crime has been committed, and the person has been convicted of that crime. Guilty in the eyes of the state/law
b) They don't get reported, or they are reported, but no conviction is achieved - result: a crime has been committed, but the person has not been convicted of that crime. Not guilty in the eyes of the state/law
2. Someone does not act in a way that is defined in law as a crime. Two options:
a) someone reports them as having committed a crime, a conviction somehow is achieved - result: no crime has been committed, but the person has been convicted of a crime. Guilty in the eyes of the state/law
b) They are not reported as having committed a crime, or are reported but no conviction is achieved - result: no crime has been committed, no person has been convicted of a crime. Not guilty in the eyes of the state/law
Your contention seems to be that a crime has been committed only if someone is convicted of it. Which is incorrect.
If someone breaks into your house, steals your telly, rapes your family and kills you, but gets off scot free, are you saying that no crime has been committed? A crime has definitely been committed, it's just that no one has been convicted.
A crime is defined in law as an act that can be prosecutable. It is NOT the act after it has been prosecuted.
How was the result in your law degree?
Ah, I don't have a law degree, nor do i pretend to !
You miss a further situation which is the one we started with.
Someone commits and act which could be a crime, but depends on the victim wanting it to be seen as such. The Arsenal / Fabregas / Barca triangle is such a case. Brace could have phoned Fabrega and said 'if you join us we'll give you lots of money'. Tapping up, against the rules. But it needs Arsenal to object for it to actually be a crime. They might decide the want Fabregas to go, and want his fee to climb so will allow the crime to take place becasue they see some benefit.
I understand the point others made ages ago which you embellished. In retrospect of course the crime (if it becomes one) took place at the time the act was committed. But the same act may or may not be a crime depending on the 'victim'.
So to wind right back - Barca haven;t tapped anyone up yet because Arsenal have chosen not to make it a crime. the crime is crucially reliant on the decision of the victim, if the victim is OK about it then the 'crime' is unreported AND isn't even a crime.
In the wider sense then of course a crime exists even if it's not been reported and I've never suggested otherwise is true generally. If someone steals my car it's still been stolen even if I don;t go to the police (for whatever reason), although my insurers would point out that if I had not reported it then it hadn't been stolen in their eyes !!
Not sure this is going anywhere now. Clearly a person of your wide experience, extensive qualifications and professional knowledge will run rings round me in terms of detailed legal debate. Which would be a bit pointless really given we're talking football and the issue of tapping up - which you don't have an opinion of I see !!
