criminal-law online-piracy punishment
How do people publicly admit to criminal activity and not typically get arrested?
<p>I've noticed that people on YouTube and even on TV would sometimes say things like "I used to take lots of coke a few years ago" or "I used to smoke weed daily until this and that" or "Yea, I smoke weed every once in a while," or "I used to pirate games a lot when I was a bit younger" or "I used pirated Windows and Photoshop until I got a job," etc., etc..</p>

<p>Basically they are confessing to a crime, on public record, couldn't anyone come after them? They've already confessed - technically all that would have to be done is a trial.</p>

<p>In these cases: possession of coke, weed, pirating games and software. In some cases - admittance that they will do it again soon - smoke weed ("I smoke it once in a while").</p>

<p>I just keep wondering every time I hear or read it... I thought finally it's time to ask people who know what they're talking about and who may be able to satisfy my curiosity and help me understand.</p>

<p>Hope the tags are right.</p>

<p>Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission.  But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. 
Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not.</p>

<p>People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no evidence, no body, no name of a missing person, they can't even be held after the holding period for investigatory purposes expires. </p>

<p>If the video shows them committing assault, or breaking and entering (there actually are idiots who post this stuff), the video is <em>actual</em> evidence of a crime and it is often used against them.</p>

<p>The statements can be used to begin an investigation, but people don't usually confess to anything worth pursuing even an investigation. The fact that someone says they used to do something criminal is not enough. For all you ( meaning anyone ) knows, the statute of limitations has expired because they "pirated games" 10 years ago. Your comment is right on.</p>

<p>Some of the things you mentioned above, are civil, not criminal matters, such as pirating software. </p>

<p>Some of the other things are criminal matters. I will discuss this question in the context of the United States and criminal law. </p>

<p>When you are accused of a crime, the prosecutor must specify when and where the crime was committed. This is a due process right.
It is the duty of the prosecutor to establish that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, in order to do that, he or she must establish where the crime occurred. If after the prosecutor has presented all his or her evidence and rests his case there is no evidence of jurisdiction you can make a motion to dismiss the case because the court has no jurisdiction.
Additionally, the prosecutor has not presented a time. You have the right to present opposing evidence, but how can you possibly do that for every single moment of time you were alive? Now the time doesn't have to be exact, but there should be some period of time mentioned that is reasonable for the facts. </p>

<p>The reason for this time and date requirement is because you have the right to not be put in jeopardy twice. If the prosecution does not specify when and where the crime occurred, there is no way to know for what act jeopardy attached.</p>

<p>Since the confessions did not include these elements, charges cannot be sought: they would be instantly dismissed.</p>

<p>Lastly, assume the confession was something like I possessed this amount of weed. That may be probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant to investigate for evidence of the crime.</p>

<p>If evidence is found in conjunction with the confession, it could result in a conviction. </p>

<p>TLDR; A confession itself probably will not result in a conviction.</p>

<p>Prosecutorial discretion: cops choose who to arrest and prosecutors decide which crimes to charge and pursue. If these confessed crimes you speak of are not being pursued, it's because the cops and attorneys conclude that they can't make the case through evidence.</p>
<p>Saying you did something is not the same as doing it. Let's assume that the cops arrest one of these people for saying they did a crime or are planning on doing a crime. In order to be successful, prosecutors need to prove their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. A person's confession in print or on the Internet or on TV is not enough to get a conviction, because they can just say they were lying. So forget the so-called confession and now assume the cops need to gather evidence. It starts to cost a bunch of time and money trying to prove that someone smoked a joint.</p>
<p>Take a look at the <a href="https://www.espn.com/olympics/swimming/news/story?id=3911474" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Michael Phelps marijuana case</a>. He was photographed smoking a bong and he issued an apology. But police say there is no proof of marijuana. They would need to find people to testify that there was weed in the bong. And even then the proof required at trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Put <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_(cannabis)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bluntly</a> (tee hee) people need to be caught in the act for these crimes to be worth prosecuting.</p>
<p>Now, if someone is saying they are a drug trafficker it might be a different story.</p>

<p>Some years ago, when I knew some "shady" people, one of whom told me that they were doing something illegal, I spoke with a lawyer about the matter. And the lawyer's advice was something like the following:</p>

<p>"You do not know that anyone is doing anything illegal. That is, your level of "knowledge" would not stand up in a court of law. All you know is that person A said person B was doing X, and that X might be illegal, depending on how it was done.</p>

<p>"What is true that you possess information that an investigator might find useful; that it is B who is doing X, and that A has first hand knowledge of the matter, not second or third hand, like yours."</p>

<p>It's unlikely that a police officer will see a "confession" on social media, and decide to pursue it, because it is "hearsay." What IS true is that if someone were investigating a matter for OTHER reasons, and found a reference to this matter online, that person could easily use the clues provided online for the remainder of the investigation.</p>
