Brought to mind by events in Batman comics. Assuming the facts in the following situation can all be proven to be true (and ignoring issues about evidence collected by vigilantes like Batman), what crimes should the perpetrators be charged with?
The Spoiler, real name Stephanie Brown, is a costumed vigilante operating in Gotham City (which, if it matters, is in the state of New Jersey). She is also a minor. She is captured by the organized crime leader known as Black Mask and is tortured and grievously wounded. Despite her injuries, she manages to escape, and is brought to the clinic of Dr. Leslie Thompkins for treatment.
However, Dr. Thompkins resents the violence caused by masked vigilantes and criminals, and especially the tolerance of underaged vigilantes. To make some kind of point, she gives Spoiler only the most superficial treatment (fooling any other doctors at the clinic as well as visitors such as Batman that she had recieved the proper treatment) and allows her to die. Assume that other doctors could testify that Spoiler’s chances of survival with those injuries were quite good with proper treatment, and that Dr. Thompkins had both the experience and the resources to give such treatment.
In regards to the death of Stephanie Brown, what crimes should Black Mask be charged with? What crimes should Dr. Thompkins be charged with?
Oh, and as a followup, fan reaction to both the death of Stephanie Brown and the complicty of Leslie Thompkins in it were so negative that both are being undone. Assuming that the above defendants were actually convicted and sentenced for their crimes, what would be the legal remedy for each one if Spoiler should appear miraculously alive? Assume that Black Mask still tortured and injured Ms. Brown, and Dr. Thompkins still withheld treatment, she just somehow secretly survived despite all that.
Considering Black Mask first – he kidnapped and tortured Brown, who dies from her injuries. Even if he didn’t intend for her to die, he’s covered by the felony murder rule.
Dr. Thompkins is a bit more interesting. As a general principle, a failure to act (when there exists a legal duty to act) can substitute for the actual actus reus in a crime. By his actions, he interferes with treatment that could save her. This is certainly manslaughter when she dies, even though the injuries she received came from someone else, and if his intent was for her to die, then it’s murder.
But wait, I hear you cry. Black Mask can say, “Hang on! Yes, I tortured her, but it was only because of the reprehensible acts of Dr. T that she ended up dying! I’m not responsible for that death!”
This is exactly why the felony murder rule was created. When you feloniously engage in conduct that might well kill people, you lose the option of saying, “I never intended death as the result.” If death results, you’re on the hook for murder, even if you never explicitly intended a death.
Now, if Brown doesn’t die, then the picture changes. Black Mask need no longer worry about felony murder, although he still has kidnapping and assault charges to face. Both Black Mask and Thompkins might face attempted murder charges, if either intended her death.
Bricker, considering all I know about law is what I’ve seen Sam McCoy use on Law and Order, is Depraved Indifference applicable to Dr. Thompkins? She technically didn’t do anything to contribute to Stephanie’s death, but her conduct involved a dangerous degree of risk.