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

[cabri]

If the penalty for every crime is the same as for murder, what's the stop every criminal from becoming a murderer?

Maybe one should not do the crime if there is a chance of murder happening.

Without punishment; what is the deterrent?

 

[Rakehellion]

Well the fact remains, the guy wasn't murdered. For it to be murder, it would have to be an unlawful killing

If you throw someone into a lion's den, is the lion to blame for his death?

 

[Rakehellion]

Maybe one should not do the crime if there is a chance of murder happening.

Without punishment; what is the deterrent?

If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, what's to stop them from committing an even bigger crime to avoid getting caught?

 

[Darwin333]

Actually the person I was responding to said 'driving erratically'. That's very different from impaired reaction time. LOTS of people drive with impaired reaction time. Have you ever driven drowsy? Texted, made a phone call, or done anything with your phone? Looked for something in the back seat? Eaten? Drank? No, I'm sure your hands at 10 and 2 with your mirrors adjusted and gaze fixed on the horizon.

To reiterate, I'm not saying we should tolerate drunk driving. It's well established that drunk drivers pose a risk to others, and it should not be tolerated. I'm just saying that at this point the penalties are absolutely fucking Looney Tunes.

You know what is tolerated? Older drivers, even though they also pose a greater risk to others.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/Older_Adult_Drivers/adult-drivers_factsheet.html

Should we start taking people drivers licenses away when they turn 75? Of course not. What we need to do is stop pretending that everyone that poses a slightly greater risk to us needs to lose their license for a year or go to prison.

The dude driving 120 MPH, weaving through traffic, severely inebriated? Yeah, put him in jail. But that's not just drunk driving.

I actually agree with you, I was simply arguing that many other things cause just as much of an impairment but are not treated the same. We put some arbitrary BAC level that doesn't cause equal impairment in everyone by any standard whatsoever. The result of drinking, and the reason it makes you a bad driver, is because it reduces your reaction time. That IS something that can be tested and regardless of the reason for the impairment the punishment should be the same. As in one of your examples, driving sleepy is equally as dangerous as driving drunk but despite them being an equal risk they are not equally punished.

As far as the absurdity of the punishments when no actual harm was done, I agree but that can be said for almost the entirety of our justice system. We don't have half the worlds prisoners for nothing...

 

[Darwin333]

If you throw someone into a lion's den, is the lion to blame for his death?

If three guys all knowingly walk into a lion's den and one gets killed should the two surviving dumbasses be responsible for the other dumbass?

 

[Jhhnn]

Considering that 46 states have felony murder rules on the books it must be supported by the majority of the legislators (both sides of the aisle) in those states. I've never heard of any major or minor movements to have the felony murder rules struck down so it appears most Americans must support this law as well.

That does not mean that most felony murder laws can be or are interpreted as this one has been. Your statement in that regard is not supportable.

Yes, I think that most Americans support felony murder charges being brought against perps where the illegal death of an innocent occurred. Actual murder. The decedent in this case was not innocent. His killing by the homeowner was perfectly legal.

A single act cannot be fairly defined as murder & non-murder for the purposes of selective prosecution. It's just Catch 22.

 

[nickqt]

That does not mean that most felony murder laws can be or are interpreted as this one has been. Your statement in that regard is not supportable.

Yes, I think that most Americans support felony murder charges being brought against perps where the illegal death of an innocent occurred. Actual murder. The decedent in this case was not innocent. His killing by the homeowner was perfectly legal.

A single act cannot be fairly defined as murder & non-murder for the purposes of selective prosecution. It's just Catch 22.

It's as simple as this in a felony murder jurisdiction.

What felony was committed? X

What bad thing happened? Y

Who committed the felony? Z

Charge Z with X and Y.

It literally doesn't matter how Y happened, as long as it was committed during Felony X.

You can oppose the laws, but none of this is new, even if it is just now getting your attention.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That does not mean that most felony murder laws can be or are interpreted as this one has been. Your statement in that regard is not supportable.

Yes, I think that most Americans support felony murder charges being brought against perps where the illegal death of an innocent occurred. Actual murder. The decedent in this case was not innocent. His killing by the homeowner was perfectly legal.

A single act cannot be fairly defined as murder & non-murder for the purposes of selective prosecution. It's just Catch 22.

Here's what most states have on the books.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/murder-during-the-commission-of-a-felony.html

Limitations on the Felony Murder Rule

Many people disagree with the felony murder rule. They find the rule unfair since it doesn’t take into account the criminal’s intent to kill. Since a criminal can be charged with murder for someone else’s act, the law doesn’t differentiate between a person who has bad intentions and one who has no bad intentions.
Most states have limitations on when the rule can be used. The felony must usually be a dangerous crime or committed in a dangerous manner. Some examples of felonies that’ll support the felony murder rule include:

• Robbery
• Rape
• Sodomy
• Arson
• Burglary
• Kidnapping
• Escape from law enforcement

Please note the two I highlighted, if anyone (owner/occupant/perpetrator) dies during the commission of these crimes the surviving prepetrators can be tried under the felony murder rules just like the case in the OP.

 

[Blackjack200]

Isn't sodomy just another term for anal sex? So if a guy screws his boyfriend hard enough to kill him... felony murder?

 

[cabri]

Isn't sodomy just another term for anal sex? So if a guy screws his boyfriend hard enough to kill him... felony murder?

It meets the requirements

The original intent was more likely when some pervert(s) stuck a broomstick or hot poker up a victims ass and ruptured internal organs causing death.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's what most states have on the books.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/murder-during-the-commission-of-a-felony.html



Please note the two I highlighted, if anyone (owner/occupant/perpetrator) dies during the commission of these crimes the surviving prepetrators can be tried under the felony murder rules just like the case in the OP.

You can't even comprehend your own links-

The purpose for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in felonies knowing that they can be liable for the actions of their partners.

That rather obviously refers to illegal actions.

In this case, the action of their partner was being lawfully killed by the homeowner. The perps are not responsible for the homeowner's actions.

Dance around that giant steaming pile of chickenshit all you want, but it's still chickenshit & has no place in a fair & honest system of law.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Their actions led to their friend or accomplice being killed therefore per the law they were held accountable per the felony murder rules.

Like it or not the courts followed the law and the convicted/incarcerated felons have zero basis for appeal.

 

[nickqt]

You can't even comprehend your own links-



That rather obviously refers to illegal actions.

In this case, the action of their partner was being lawfully killed by the homeowner. The perps are not responsible for the homeowner's actions.

Dance around that giant steaming pile of chickenshit all you want, but it's still chickenshit & has no place in a fair & honest system of law.

Your feelings about the felony murder rule are perfectly legitimate, but it doesn't change the fact that it is used like this all of the time.

If someone commits a felony, whatever bad thing happens will be made into a crime and attached to the charges. This has been going on for quite awhile, even if you are now just aware of it.

 

[Cozarkian]

You can't even comprehend your own links-



That rather obviously refers to illegal actions.

In this case, the action of their partner was being lawfully killed by the homeowner. The perps are not responsible for the homeowner's actions.

Dance around that giant steaming pile of chickenshit all you want, but it's still chickenshit & has no place in a fair & honest system of law.

What if the homeowner missed and instead of killing one of the burglars, the bullet traveled through the drywall and accidentally killed his child?

That would still be a legal shooting and without the felony murder rule, nobody would be punished for the child's death.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your feelings about the felony murder rule are perfectly legitimate, but it doesn't change the fact that it is used like this all of the time.

If someone commits a felony, whatever bad thing happens will be made into a crime and attached to the charges. This has been going on for quite awhile, even if you are now just aware of it.

I understand that it was intended to be applied when an innocent or a cop was killed, an illegal homicide. This is different. The charge of felony murder is logically predicated on the fact that an illegal homicide occurred when in fact none did. Otherwise, it's just a made up crime, as you offer.

 

[Darwin333]

Isn't sodomy just another term for anal sex? So if a guy screws his boyfriend hard enough to kill him... felony murder?

Not only that but the guy that was filming should, per the law, be charged with felony murder too. That's how fucked up these types of laws are.

 

[Darwin333]

Their actions led to their friend or accomplice being killed therefore per the law they were held accountable per the felony murder rules.

Like it or not the courts followed the law and the convicted/incarcerated felons have zero basis for appeal.

So the accomplice who got himself killed isn't accountable for his own actions, his buddies are. Gotcha

 

[Darwin333]

What if the homeowner missed and instead of killing one of the burglars, the bullet traveled through the drywall and accidentally killed his child?

That would still be a legal shooting and without the felony murder rule, nobody would be punished for the child's death.

THAT would be a legit use of this law. One of the bad guys getting killed while none of the bad guys actually threatened anyones lives and the other bad guys getting charged for the lawful shooting of a bad guy is just dumb. The bad guys would have had a better chance if they had killed the homeowner and absolutely zero downside to doing so.

I don't like giving felons incentive to kill me instead of just rob me because they could get charged with murder either way. Intent is a huge part of law, especially when someone gets dead, and these assholes obviously didn't intend on anyone getting dead.

 

[bshole]

Your feelings about the felony murder rule are perfectly legitimate, but it doesn't change the fact that it is used like this all of the time.

If someone commits a felony, whatever bad thing happens will be made into a crime and attached to the charges. This has been going on for quite awhile, even if you are now just aware of it.

Well when you have a for profit prison system, laws like this are needed to keep the head count up. America is number 1 in incarceration in the entire world....... we love our freedom (to profit on ANYTHING) here.

 

[brycejones]

Well when you have a for profit prison system, laws like this are needed to keep the head count up. America is number 1 in incarceration in the entire world....... we love our freedom (to profit on ANYTHING) here.

FFS, there are many issues and causes of the prison industrial complex. This isn't one of them.

 

[Cozarkian]

THAT would be a legit use of this law. One of the bad guys getting killed while none of the bad guys actually threatened anyones lives and the other bad guys getting charged for the lawful shooting of a bad guy is just dumb. The bad guys would have had a better chance if they had killed the homeowner and absolutely zero downside to doing so.

I don't like giving felons incentive to kill me instead of just rob me because they could get charged with murder either way. Intent is a huge part of law, especially when someone gets dead, and these assholes obviously didn't intend on anyone getting dead.

Lawful shooting of a bad guy is a narrower exception than the one Jhnnn demanded. It still has some problems though. For example, police arrive at a felony in progress, one of the criminals starts a shoot out and the cops kill his accomplice, who wanted to surrender, not resist. The criminal who started the shoot out would not be guilty of his accomplices death under your revised felony murder rule.

Now, an exception could be crafted that wouldn't exclude the above, such as "doesn't apply to lawful killing of one of the felons unless the felon charged took direct action, other than commission of the felony itself, that caused the accomplices death."
The problem is such an exception would erode the benefit of the rule, which allows prosecutors to meet their burden of proof on felony murder without presenting evidence on actual causation. Ultimately, most states decided it is better to have a simple rule that encourages potential felons to minimize the danger of their crimes to all potential persons, including themselves.

Also, the felony murder rule does not provide a meaningful incentive to kill. In order to determine they should kill the homeowner to avoid felony murder, they would have to anticipate he homeowner having a loaded gun. If they had anticipated that, they would almost certainly be more concerned with being killed themselves than with being charged with felony murder if an accomplice is killed. If the fear of their own life and the benefit of eliminating witnesses wasn't incentive enough to kill the homeowner first, felony murder wasn't going to tip the scale. The greater incentive for criminals concerned with felony murder would be to case targets and burglar them only when the homeowners are gone.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lawful shooting of a bad guy is a narrower exception than the one Jhnnn demanded. It still has some problems though. For example, police arrive at a felony in progress, one of the criminals starts a shoot out and the cops kill his accomplice, who wanted to surrender, not resist. The criminal who started the shoot out would not be guilty of his accomplices death under your revised felony murder rule.

Now, an exception could be crafted that wouldn't exclude the above, such as "doesn't apply to lawful killing of one of the felons unless the felon charged took direct action, other than commission of the felony itself, that caused the accomplices death."
The problem is such an exception would erode the benefit of the rule, which allows prosecutors to meet their burden of proof on felony murder without presenting evidence on actual causation. Ultimately, most states decided it is better to have a simple rule that encourages potential felons to minimize the danger of their crimes to all potential persons, including themselves.

Also, the felony murder rule does not provide a meaningful incentive to kill. In order to determine they should kill the homeowner to avoid felony murder, they would have to anticipate he homeowner having a loaded gun. If they had anticipated that, they would almost certainly be more concerned with being killed themselves than with being charged with felony murder if an accomplice is killed. If the fear of their own life and the benefit of eliminating witnesses wasn't incentive enough to kill the homeowner first, felony murder wasn't going to tip the scale. The greater incentive for criminals concerned with felony murder would be to case targets and burglar them only when the homeowners are gone.

Please. Anybody who shoots at cops won't see daylight for a very long time, anyway.

In your example where the homeowner kills an innocent, that's actually negligence on his part. If he were charged & received a suspended sentence then it would be reasonable to charge the perps as well. As I offered & as you seem to be able to ignore, the charge of felony murder is logically predicated on an illegal homicide. If any of the perps end up dead through legal means, too bad for them. If anybody else ends up dead, that's illegal by definition & they can be charged w/ felony murder.

 

[Jhhnn]

FFS, there are many issues and causes of the prison industrial complex. This isn't one of them.

Excessive sentences are a big part of the problem & this is an example of that.

That's how they keep the prisons full.

 

[Darwin333]

Lawful shooting of a bad guy is a narrower exception than the one Jhnnn demanded. It still has some problems though. For example, police arrive at a felony in progress, one of the criminals starts a shoot out and the cops kill his accomplice, who wanted to surrender, not resist. The criminal who started the shoot out would not be guilty of his accomplices death under your revised felony murder rule.

That would be exactly the type of reason FOR the felony murder laws, one guys actions solely and needlessly caused the death of another. If the guy that was doing the shooting got killed, while the other guy gave himself up and had no intention on getting into a shootout with the cops he shouldn't be charged with murder.

It's just silly that these guys are getting treated the same way as if they went into the house, with intent, and killed the guy before robbing him. This isn't a deterrent to crime (well the guy getting shot might be), it is an incentive for bad guys to be even worse. They have a much better chance of getting away with it if there are no witnesses and if you are going to get charged with the same crime regardless they are going to pick the one that gives them the best opportunity to get away.

Now, an exception could be crafted that wouldn't exclude the above, such as "doesn't apply to lawful killing of one of the felons unless the felon charged took direct action, other than commission of the felony itself, that caused the accomplices death."
The problem is such an exception would erode the benefit of the rule, which allows prosecutors to meet their burden of proof on felony murder without presenting evidence on actual causation. Ultimately, most states decided it is better to have a simple rule that encourages potential felons to minimize the danger of their crimes to all potential persons, including themselves.

I am simply talking about personal accountability. The guy that got dead did so on his own accord, through his own actions. Just because other people were doing the same thing with him doesn't mean they caused his death, they just got lucky and weren't the one shot. Now if the homeowner missed the robbers and accidentally shot an innocent bystander, by all means charge all of them with murder but when no murder has actually taken place, as it was a lawful homicide, don't pile on absurd charges that they didn't commit nor had any intent to commit.

Also, the felony murder rule does not provide a meaningful incentive to kill. In order to determine they should kill the homeowner to avoid felony murder, they would have to anticipate he homeowner having a loaded gun. If they had anticipated that, they would almost certainly be more concerned with being killed themselves than with being charged with felony murder if an accomplice is killed. If the fear of their own life and the benefit of eliminating witnesses wasn't incentive enough to kill the homeowner first, felony murder wasn't going to tip the scale. The greater incentive for criminals concerned with felony murder would be to case targets and burglar them only when the homeowners are gone.

If I was a thief I would damn sure be more willing to be a violent thief after seeing that I could get charged with murder despite being just a petty thief.

All I'm saying is charge them with the crime they committed. They didn't get the guy killed, his own actions got him killed. It's like blaming Ferrari if I kill myself doing 170mph on the interstate.