Classic law school
question: If a man
shoots a person, he is guilty of what?
Murder. If a man shoots a person who is
sleeping, he is guilty of what?
Murder. But if it turns out later that the man being attacked was already dead, what is he guilty of?
Attempted murder. You can't
kill a person who is already
dead, but you could
conspire to kill someone (or attempt to kill someone) who isn't
alive. In the heart of the person doing the act, there is
guilt and
accountability. The person knew they were doing a
wrong act.
How does this apply?
The person who
collected money isn't guilty of
fraud. The crime of fraud requires that a person actively try to
swindle someone. It involves the active process of lying to
another human being in order to trick them into giving up some goods. He did nothing of the sort. Nor is the person guilty of
extortion; as he did not use the threat of
force. The person who
collected money in the above scenario is guilty of
petty theft, however, he did not
steal from the people he collected from... he stole from the Red Cross, strangely enough.
Since the people believed that they were giving money to a
charitable organization, they were in fact doing so. They had, by their simple act, given money to the
Red Cross. By not turning this money over to the
correct people, he is in essence
stealing what is
morally and in this case,
legally theirs. If he had sat there in front of the store with a blank can and no sign, he would have been in the clear; those people would legally have been handing over their money to the person. He would not be
implictly lying about the
scheme.
The man stole $700 from the
Red Cross, and could in fact get
sued for such, and I'd bet all he thought was that he was taking some pocket change off of some suckers.
Strange, how it all works, no? The legal system finds ways to punish those who do
complex moral wrongs by re
interpreting itself, and rethinking itself; that is one of its strengths.