Not sure how to make this into a link, but cut and paste it if you're interested ...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21620...from=public_rss

This raises an interesting Shadowrun angle, quite apart from me no longer being able to shake my head and say "only in Amercia."

Yeah, but this is the same country with a sizable 'Jedi' population.

So, do you think that Sixth world lawyers would focus on the willingness of the participant to become possessed? ie, someone who follows a possession tradition or willingly allowed themselves to become possessed is more responsible for their actions than an individual who was forcibly possessed and shunted into the back of their own brain.

From a defense angle, it'd be difficult to prove I'd assume. There would have to be a large amount of circumstantial evidence unless someone assensed the defendant at the time.

Is most magical evidence allowed in courts of the 6th world?

Depends on the court.

If the man was willingly possessed, then the guilt would lie on both he and the summoner of the spirit - or in the case of a free spirit, on the spirit itself.

While that might be the legal principle, there's a difference between being willingly possessed and consenting to the activity (as the spirit's intentions may be unrevealed, and indeed the act may have been unpremeditated).

~J

That's only applicable in courts that recognize intent. Even then, it's comparable to drunken vehicular homicide.

In jurisdictions where spirit sentience is not recognized (that is, enlightened jurisdictions), that's probably the case—you're surrendering your decision-making capability to no one in particular, legally speaking. Well, at least with unbound Free Spirits—a possessing spirit under the command of a mage may result in, legally, the surrendering of decision-making to that mage.

Once a being recognized as sentient in the district enters the discussion, it becomes the same question as what happens in the event of a voluntarily accepted Control Thoughts/Control Actions. My guess is that it will hinge on the question of whether or not it was reasonable to assume that the controlling sentience would cause actions in a law-abiding manner.

Because of this complexity, I imagine that possession cases will see a large number of individuals "killed while attempting to escape arrest".

~J

you can "influence" them to be willing.

Well, yeah, that's another sticky wicket. Even ignoring the possibility of magical coercion, how do you prove that someone was willingly possessed/controlled? Most of the relevant magical effects don't require a willing target.

~J

I don't know, personally I'd imagine that in the dark and corupt courts found in the Sixth World whether the various 'Devil made me do it' defenses would work depended solely one how much fame/wealth/power the Defendant had instead of any legal or logical thought process.

No, like everything else in court, it is more a matter of who's got the better Social Adept.

Can anyone say Johnnie Cochran ancestor spirit? "If the body dont fit, you must acquit!"