ELKHART 4 - Life sentences for a murder they didn't commit

[DrPizza]

If you set a house on fire, and didn't know a person was in the house - that person died, are you guilty of that crime as well? What crime is it? I think most of us would agree that you're responsible for that death..

Step 1. We agree that if you commit a crime that leads to the death of a victim, that you're responsible for that death. Even though you meant to commit one crime, had you thought about it before committing the crime, death was a possible side effect of your crime.
-------

Step 2. You and a bunch of accomplices plan on burning down a house. You're all pouring gasoline all over the place, and one of you strikes a match setting the house on fire after you think everyone is outside. Unfortunately, one of your accomplices was upstairs at the time, and he dies. You killed your own accomplice? Yes, I think so.

So, if you commit a crime, and it's foreseeable by a reasonable person that the consequences of your actions might lead to the death of one of your accomplices, that's on you.
-----

Step 3. If you rob a house, one of the consequences of your actions is the death of one of your accomplices. That's on you.

 

[PokerGuy]

Don't complain when you get a bunch of other ill conceived, badly written laws that impact you then.

I don't see how these laws are "ill conceived" or "badly written" at all. The logic is simple. If something happens because you committed a felony, it's on you. Whether that "something" happened to one of the criminals, a bystander, the intended victim etc is not relevant. Things that happen as a direct result of you committing the felony are your fault. Nothing ill conceived or badly written about it.

Also, it's not like the prosecutors are using some sneaky tactic and using a particular law for something it was not intended for. This was part of the design of the law from the start.

 

[Jhhnn]

You can't possibly be that stupid. Show me a single instance of a break-in with a death connected to it that is charged as a misdemeanor.

And the inevitable return to circular reasoning.

 

[cabri]

Example of people not feeling that responsibility exists for their actions.

CODDLING

 

[brycejones]

Thread title is false. Under felony murder statutes they are responsible for murder.

 

[WelshBloke]

Also, it's not like the prosecutors are using some sneaky tactic and using a particular law for something it was not intended for. This was part of the design of the law from the start.

Wasn't the law designed so that if one of the criminals shot the householder they could all be charged with murder rather than just the one of them?

My issue with this is charging them with the death of one of their members who was lawfully killed.

 

[smackababy]

Wasn't the law designed so that if one of the criminals shot the householder they could all be charged with murder rather than just the one of them?

My issue with this is charging them with the death of one of their members who was lawfully killed.

The law was designed to hold those in commission of a felony responsible for any death that occurs during said commission. It is working as intended.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[Jaskalas]

If you set a house on fire, and didn't know a person was in the house - that person died, are you guilty of that crime as well? What crime is it? I think most of us would agree that you're responsible for that death..

Step 1. We agree that if you commit a crime that leads to the death of a victim, that you're responsible for that death. Even though you meant to commit one crime, had you thought about it before committing the crime, death was a possible side effect of your crime.
-------

Step 2. You and a bunch of accomplices plan on burning down a house. You're all pouring gasoline all over the place, and one of you strikes a match setting the house on fire after you think everyone is outside. Unfortunately, one of your accomplices was upstairs at the time, and he dies. You killed your own accomplice? Yes, I think so.

So, if you commit a crime, and it's foreseeable by a reasonable person that the consequences of your actions might lead to the death of one of your accomplices, that's on you.
-----

Step 3. If you rob a house, one of the consequences of your actions is the death of one of your accomplices. That's on you.

If you light a house on fire, you burned it down. You killed your "friend".
They didn't pull the trigger in the real scenario.
The crime should be armed home invasion, not murder.

We should not circumvent the lawful punishment for their crime, by chalking on false attribution of greater crimes that did not happen. Just because they're scumbags, who deserve many years in prison, doesn't mean we get to railroad them beyond the scope of their actual crimes.

There is a strong moral argument against what Jhhnn is describing as circular reasoning.

 

[bshole]

If you set a house on fire, and didn't know a person was in the house - that person died, are you guilty of that crime as well? What crime is it? I think most of us would agree that you're responsible for that death..

Step 1. We agree that if you commit a crime that leads to the death of a victim, that you're responsible for that death. Even though you meant to commit one crime, had you thought about it before committing the crime, death was a possible side effect of your crime.
-------

Step 2. You and a bunch of accomplices plan on burning down a house. You're all pouring gasoline all over the place, and one of you strikes a match setting the house on fire after you think everyone is outside. Unfortunately, one of your accomplices was upstairs at the time, and he dies. You killed your own accomplice? Yes, I think so.

So, if you commit a crime, and it's foreseeable by a reasonable person that the consequences of your actions might lead to the death of one of your accomplices, that's on you.
-----

Step 3. If you rob a house, one of the consequences of your actions is the death of one of your accomplices. That's on you.

Step 4. You are illegally smoking some pot in your house. A full commando unit of DEA agents swarm the house, they shoot your dog, your wife, and your kids. They then charge you with capital murder for their deaths. Works like a charm.

Step 5. Walking with some friends in the forest, you run across some eagle feathers. Each of you pick up an eagle feather, thus committing a federal felony. A swarm of DNR agents swoop in and open up on your companions. You of course are then rightfully prosecuted for capital murder for their deaths.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

 

[WelshBloke]

Men.

 

[dainthomas]

If you light a house on fire, you burned it down. You killed your "friend".
They didn't pull the trigger in the real scenario.
The crime should be armed home invasion, not murder.

We should not circumvent the lawful punishment for their crime, by chalking on false attribution of greater crimes that did not happen. Just because they're scumbags, who deserve many years in prison, doesn't mean we get to railroad them beyond the scope of their actual crimes.

There is a strong moral argument against what Jhhnn is describing as circular reasoning.

I know someone who works for the public defender office, and she told me about a guy who testified he was innocent of something but was subsequently convicted anyway. So the DA decided to add on a charge of perjury because he had to be lying if a jury found him guilty.

Seemed kinda douchey to me.

 

[Cozarkian]

So why not just increase the maximum sentence for those crimes?

If felonies have the same punishment as murder, felons have an incentive to kill potential witnesses rather than leaving them alive.

Felony murder laws are designed to encourage felons to use the safest means possible if they choose to commit a felony. For example, by targeting homes when they are vacant, surrendering if caught rather than trying to flee and starting a high-speed chase, and monitoring one's accomplices to make sure they aren't carrying a gun, taking hostages, etc...

 

[PokerGuy]

The law was designed to hold those in commission of a felony responsible for any death that occurs during said commission. It is working as intended.

Agreed. Not just the death of the 'intended' victim, the death of anyone that directly results from the felony committed.

Another example would be, lets say someone goes in to rob a bank, and a shootout with a security guard ensues. One of the shots fired by the guard hits a bystander and kills them. Under the law, the guy robbing the bank would be charged with murder of the bystander, even if he wasn't the one that fired the shot.

The basic logic behind these laws is that you are responsible for what happens as a direct result of you committing a crime, not just for damage you personally directly inflict.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Step 4. You are illegally smoking some pot in your house. A full commando unit of DEA agents swarm the house, they shoot your dog, your wife, and your kids. They then charge you with capital murder for their deaths. Works like a charm.

Step 5. Walking with some friends in the forest, you run across some eagle feathers. Each of you pick up an eagle feather, thus committing a federal felony. A swarm of DNR agents swoop in and open up on your companions. You of course are then rightfully prosecuted for capital murder for their deaths.

Option 1: Worst troll attempt in the history of the internet.

Option 2: Dumbest attempt at making a point in the history of the internet.

Whichever it is, you've set a new record today. Be proud.

 

[PokerGuy]

I know someone who works for the public defender office, and she told me about a guy who testified he was innocent of something but was subsequently convicted anyway. So the DA decided to add on a charge of perjury because he had to be lying if a jury found him guilty.

Seemed kinda douchey to me.

Sounds like one of those oft-repeated stories that is based on a very particular scenario grain of truth. If you think about it, if that's how it worked, then *everyone* who maintained their innocence and was found guilty in court would automatically be guilty of perjury. That's not how it works.

 

[cabri]

Step 4. You are illegally smoking some pot in your house. A full commando unit of DEA agents swarm the house, they shoot your dog, your wife, and your kids. They then charge you with capital murder for their deaths. Works like a charm.

Step 5. Walking with some friends in the forest, you run across some eagle feathers. Each of you pick up an eagle feather, thus committing a federal felony. A swarm of DNR agents swoop in and open up on your companions. You of course are then rightfully prosecuted for capital murder for their deaths.

Option 1: Worst troll attempt in the history of the internet.

Option 2: Dumbest attempt at making a point in the history of the internet.

Whichever it is, you've set a new record today. Be proud.

The shame on you - forgetting whom you are quoting

 

[bshole]

Option 1: Worst troll attempt in the history of the internet.

Option 2: Dumbest attempt at making a point in the history of the internet.

Whichever it is, you've set a new record today. Be proud.

Actually it was a legit attempt, I was not trolling. I guess I will have to go with option 2. Do I get some kind of award for that?

I actually did look up case where the cops accused a driver of a car of trying to run them over. They proceeded to shoot and kill the passenger. They FUCKING charged the DRIVER with felony murder for the passengers death. Sorta proves my point may have a grain of actual documented reality in it. Look up the case for yourself, google is your friend....

This is EXACTLY what worries me about these kind of laws. It gives a pissed off police a motive to kill people, they can then charge the survivors with capital murder!!

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_23251211/hayward-police-shooting-raises-questions

 

[Cozarkian]

Sounds like one of those oft-repeated stories that is based on a very particular scenario grain of truth. If you think about it, if that's how it worked, then *everyone* who maintained their innocence and was found guilty in court would automatically be guilty of perjury. That's not how it works.

No, it is only if you maintain your innocence by waiving your Fifth Amendment rights and testifying under oath that you are innocent.

 

[nickqt]

That makes more sense than the way it was explained before. Before, someone said the perps are guilty of all crimes committed during the incident. Saying they are responsible for all deaths resulting from the crime, and we call those deaths "felony murder," makes more sense to me.

---snip---
but basically, a felony murder rule allows for any crime or result of a crime to apply to any of the criminals who committed the crime.

I explained it exactly the way the rule functions. I didn't limit it to only including any "crimes". Anything "bad" that happens during the commission of a felony can be used against any of the defendants as if they themselves committed the crime or directly caused the "bad" thing to happen.

When it is the death of another human, regardless of intent and who died, it becomes murder during the commission of a felony - felony murder.

 

[Blackjack200]

If you set a house on fire, and didn't know a person was in the house - that person died, are you guilty of that crime as well? What crime is it? I think most of us would agree that you're responsible for that death..

Step 1. We agree that if you commit a crime that leads to the death of a victim, that you're responsible for that death. Even though you meant to commit one crime, had you thought about it before committing the crime, death was a possible side effect of your crime.
-------

Step 2. You and a bunch of accomplices plan on burning down a house. You're all pouring gasoline all over the place, and one of you strikes a match setting the house on fire after you think everyone is outside. Unfortunately, one of your accomplices was upstairs at the time, and he dies. You killed your own accomplice? Yes, I think so.

So, if you commit a crime, and it's foreseeable by a reasonable person that the consequences of your actions might lead to the death of one of your accomplices, that's on you.
-----

Step 3. If you rob a house, one of the consequences of your actions is the death of one of your accomplices. That's on you.

Why should we punish consequences that may have been realized by chance rather than the heinousness of the intended or committed crime itself?

I would argue that a crime where people are likely to get killed but don't is far more heinous than a crime where there is a low risk that someone could get hurt, but despite the odds, someone does.

Just to illustrate, lets imagine to groups of individuals that are breaking into houses. The first is breaking into apparently abandoned houses, and stealing brass and copper for scrap. The second is breaking into apparently occupied homes, hoping to terrorize the people inside into giving up their valuables.

The first group breaks into a house with boarded up windows and no lights on, but they discover a bunch of smackheads inside, and the smackheads are spooked, and one them is killed trying to escape, let's say he runs into the street or jumps out a window.

The second group breaks into a house with all its lights on, TV on, but no-one is home.

I would argue that the second crime is far more heinous, even though the outcome wasn't as bad. We already provide for more severe punishments when a person commits a crime that puts others at risk. I remember my friend worked at a Pizza place, and the guy who owned it burned it down for the insurance. There were residential units above the restaurant, and he was punished not only for the arson, but for the danger to the apartment tenants, even though none were hurt.

As an aside, I'm only arguing theory here, not the case at hand.

 

[WelshBloke]

If felonies have the same punishment as murder, felons have an incentive to kill potential witnesses rather than leaving them alive.

Well in the example in the OP they would have been better off shooting the householder straight away.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Well in the example in the OP they would have been better off shooting the householder straight away.

BZZT! Wrong answer. In the example in the OP they would have been better off not committing the crime in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

I explained it exactly the way the rule functions. I didn't limit it to only including any "crimes". Anything "bad" that happens during the commission of a felony can be used against any of the defendants as if they themselves committed the crime or directly caused the "bad" thing to happen.

When it is the death of another human, regardless of intent and who died, it becomes murder during the commission of a felony - felony murder.

In other words, you transfer the personal responsibility of the decedent onto his companions.

Had he been alone, the story would have ended. The fact that he had companions means they can be blamed as if his death were not a rightful consequence of his own actions.

I can appreciate the felony murder charge when wrongful death occurs, but that's not what happened.