Love this cartoon:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png

Crimes aren't inherited.

So if I kill you and take your house, and somehow escape justice before dying myself and passing said house to my son, your son forfeits any claim to the house? Correct?

I think the general consensus is that if you can identify a specific property that has been stolen from you in an estate, you can reclaim it (from the estate). But claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly, or general claims from one group to another, like a common English person against the Queen, a colored person against a random white man, or a Palestinian against an Israelite, those are not valid.

General consensus of people who've benefitted from said stealing*

In each of the cases you listed, the person who would've had claims against them has power over the plaintiff

So if I unknowingly buy a stolen bike off Craigslist, I get to keep it? If the owner later identifies it with proof and requests me to return it, do I get to say "sorry, no" to him?

> claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly ... are not valid

I am not sure about that. A stolen good cannot be legally buyed from the thiefs.

No, you won't kill it so casually. It is: "legally bought from the thieves".

no. (with a lot of statutory exceptions, i'm quite sure) i believe the applicable common law rule is this:

if there's a (prior) theft in the chain of title, then you do not have good title.

hence the market for title insurance and the market for title searches.

You don't even have to die in this scenario. Just give the loot to a friend. He inherits the loot but not the crime. Maybe he'll return the favor, or just immediately give it back to you.

that's a legal convention that we agree with in America today, kinda, mostly. it has not always been the prevailing legal convention in society.

Inequality sure is.