Except he didn’t vote twice. He got in line to do it. He was turned away. From there he could try to say he never actually intended to vote again and would have not filled out another ballot and submitted it.

The drink driving analogy to this is walking to your vehicle while drunk with your keys in your hand. Or sitting in your vehicle. In many states and jurisdictions if you are sitting in the car even without keys or actual intent to drive you can be convicted of “DUI”.

From said page:

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]

Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.

No, because it isn’t proportional.

A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there’s a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.

But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:

If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I’d say not really.

If you’re racing and your buddy hits a tree, it’s not really murder either yet he wouldn’t of been racing alone. It’s a two player sport so I’d tend to say guilty.

Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren’t there to help him, it’s hard to say but I’d tend to go not guilty.

It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.

The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.

Oh, agreed. Should have a way to punish someone for trying (e.g. attempted murder charges because the police stopped the murder and saved the intended victim). But even then, one still has to be able to prove it, and the level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - is as high as it is for good reason.

Now, if the accused had encountered police detectives at that polling station instead of real election workers, I imagine it would have gone like this:

(Police detective posing as a poll worker prepares an otherwise blank but non-obviously spoiled ballot.)

“Ok sir, here’s your ballot.”

Choice A: “Thanks, here’s the ballot, yay I just voted.” “Sir, you’re under arrest.”

Choice B: “Um… actually I already voted.” “Yes we know sir, I see it right here, but we were just testing you.” “No, hey, wait, I was trying to test you.” “…”

It’s not a reasonable expectation to ask actual election workers - poll working volunteers - to do anything like the above, though.