# Is motive required to prove murder in court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 3, 2024, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442 "2024-06-03T16:45:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/21 "2024-06-07T13:36:33Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > You also have accessories. The driver of the getaway car is just a liable as the perpetrators if something escalates to murder in a botched holdup. “I was just driving, man” has not held up in court > **Off-topic, hidden** > > That’s the felony murder rule which is IMO (and in the opinion most right thinking people) a travesty of justice. One of the reasons being a complete lack of mens rea for the murder. Even if the driver doesn’t even know the robber had a gun, or even if he wasn’t and it was the robber who gets killed by the cops it’s still a murder rap. Which is ridiculous ---
**Author:** ![Ulysses](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulysses/32/16083_2.png) [@Ulysses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulysses)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/22 "2024-06-07T13:39:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I thought if any crime needed motive it would be first-degree murder. I thought the definition of first-degree murder was pre-meditation that led to the murder. That would presume a motive to me. First degree murder varies by jurisdiction. In some, it is premeditated murder. In others, it is second degree murder plus various aggravating factors (e.g., murder of a police officer or other public servant). As to motive, as others have noted, it is generally not an element of proof. Generally, prosecutors must prove a criminal act (actus reus), intent (mens rea), and causation between the two. As @Procrustus posted, motive should not be confused with intent. Motive is why someone committed an act; intent is the degree to which the commission was knowing and voluntary, as illustrated in the examples provided by @Chronos and @Andy_L. That said, proving motive at trial can be helpful in establishing a prosecutor’s theory of the case and persuading a jury or judge. Effective trial work is often a matter of good (fact-based) storytelling. ---
**Author:** ![Ulysses](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulysses/32/16083_2.png) [@Ulysses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulysses)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/23 "2024-06-07T13:44:49Z")
> **Off-topic, hidden** > > > [@griffin1977](#): > > > > That’s the felony murder rule which is IMO (and in the opinion most right thinking people) a travesty of justice. One of the reasons being a complete lack of mens rea for the murder. Even if the driver doesn’t even know the robber had a gun, or even if he wasn’t and it was the robber who gets killed by the cops it’s still a murder rap. Which is ridiculous > > Respectfully disagree. The felony murder statutes with which I’m familiar include an element of foreseeability, i.e., that it was foreseeable from the viewpoint of the defendant that grievous bodily harm or death could result from the felony in which they engaged. I have read that some jurisdictions may lack the foreseeability element and I would agree that is problematic and warrants amendment. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/24 "2024-06-07T13:45:01Z")
> **Off-topic, hidden** > > > [@griffin1977](#): > > > > That’s the felony murder rule which is IMO (and in the opinion most right thinking people) a travesty of justice. > > When it’s misused, yes. If the get away driver knows the bank robbers are armed I think it is fair to apply. That is not a comment on the general fairness of the justice system, I’m just pointing out that the felony murder rule makes sense in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/25 "2024-06-07T14:05:00Z")
> [@Ulysses](#): > > Motive is why someone committed an act; intent is the degree to which the commission was knowing and voluntary, as illustrated in the examples provided by @Chronos and @Andy_L. Yep. I designed my examples to have one where intent was clear (going to a different table to get a fork and stabbing in the neck) but motive was unknown, and one where motive was clear but intent was (arguably) absent ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/26 "2024-06-07T14:35:16Z")
> **Off-topic, hidden** > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > I’m just pointing out that the felony murder rule makes sense in some cases > > But that doesn’t make it any less a travesty of justice. Hell you could make everyone who has a mustache guilty of murder and it would make sense _in some cases_, there have been plenty of mustachioed murderers. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/27 "2024-06-07T14:37:28Z")
> **Off-topic, hidden** > > I think that analogy goes a little too far. The mustache has nothing to do with the crime. Being the getaway driver does. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/28 "2024-06-07T14:39:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In rape cases a person being under the influence of drugs is deemed unable to give meaningful consent to having sex. What if both parties are under the influence? That depends - in my state, simply being under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not negate the ability to consent. The person must have either been drugged without their consent or be so under the influence that they are “physically helpless” which means unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness. So drunk people can in fact consent. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/29 "2024-06-07T14:55:31Z")
> **Off-topic, hidden** > > > [@griffin1977](#): > > > > But that doesn’t make it any less a travesty of justice. Hell you could make everyone who has a mustache guilty of murder and it would make sense _in some cases_, there have been plenty of mustachioed murderers. > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > I think that analogy goes a little too far. The mustache has nothing to do with the crime. Being the getaway driver does. > > Right. Felony murder is supposed to require knowledge of a dangerous crime being committed that leads to a person’s death. A lack of rigor in the justice process allows felony murder to be charged and convictions to result without evidence of that knowledge by a defendant. It’s the same type of travesty of justice that occurs with many laws. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/30 "2024-06-07T15:11:01Z")
> **Off-topic, hidden** > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > I think that analogy goes a little too far > > I was pointing out that saying a law is sometimes applied to people who are guilty does make it any less of a travesty of justify ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/31 "2024-06-07T15:16:09Z")
[Moderating] This is Factual Questions. Noting that the felony murder rule exists, and that a person can be convicted under it, as @smithsb did, is factual and on-topic. Noting that said rule is rare outside of the US, as @Northern_Piper did, is a slight digression, but still relevant and factual. The subsequent debate by @griffin1977 , @Ulysses , @TriPolar , and @Whack-a-Mole , about whether the felony murder rule is just, is not factual. If you wish to debate that further, start a new thread in GD. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2024, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442/32 "2024-06-07T17:54:34Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > > [@md-2000](#): > > > > Of course, there are some crimes where guilty intent (“mens rea”) is not necessary. DUI is a prime example - if the judge believes you had no idea the punch was spiked, it may mitigate the sentence if the judge is feeling charitable - but you’re still guilty > > There is mens rea for driving impaired / .08. Àt those levels, it’s difficult to believe that the driver wasn’t feeling the effects and knew something was impairing them, even if they didn’t know what. As I understant the Candian criminal charge, the offense is “driving with a blood alcohol level over .08”. The only possible defense is “it isn’t”. (Or, “is the measuring unit correct?”) How or why it got there is irrelevant to conviction, but may be relevvant at sentencing. There is also a charge of “impaired driving” possible, which is obviously unable to properly control a motor vehicle, which does not required measuring blood alcohol. And, the _Gordon Lightfoot_ defense does not work. Gord was pulled over by a cop who smelled alcohol on his breath. he was taken to the station where he blew over .08. His lawyer argued that just because it was over .08 at the station a half hour later did not necessarily mean it was into his bloodstream at that level when he was driving. The judge, presumably a really big fan, acquitted him. The appeal court fairly quickly reversed that and convicted him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-motive-required-to-prove-murder-in-court/1002442.md?page=1)