# Is this 'justice'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877 "2013-10-10T15:35:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/1 "2013-10-10T15:35:04Z")
Details [here](http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/09/teen-would-be-burglars-convicted-of-felony-murder-receive-extreme-50-year-sentences-for-crimes-they-didnt-commit/) and [here](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/the-elkhart-four_b_4034052.html). In brief, four teenagers broke into a home (that they thought was unoccupied) and were confronted by the homeowner, Rodney Scott. Fearing for his safety, Scott “grabbed” his pistol and confronted the youths. He shot one of them dead and injured another. That, then, set the stage for the application of Indiana’s “[felony murder law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule)” which comes into play when anyone is killed during the commission of various major crimes. In other words, even though it was the homeowner who shot and killed one of the robbers, the robbers themselves were then subject to, and sentenced under, the Felony Murder law. Bottom line is that they all received what are essentially life sentences - from 45 to 55 years in prison. I do understand that all this is totally ‘legal’. What I don’t understand is how justice was served by applying the law in this case, and under these circumstances. Did the judge and prosecutor have any discretion in applying the law? Could they have found a way to, for lack of a better word, ‘ignore’ it? And, finally, as per my OP’s title, is this justice? ETA: To pre-empt those who might ask what my feeling is, I’ll say unhesitatingly that the sentences were unfair, and thus justice was not served. It is yet another example (similar to, say, the “three strikes you’re out” law) of not taking into account the totality of the case. In particular, it is another example of a “one size does not fit all” law. ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/2 "2013-10-10T15:57:42Z")
From the first article linked “In addition, the teens were not the ones who killed their friend. Rather, it was a tragic accident.” I buy the first part of the sentence, but the last half is obviously false. The death was a lot of things, but accidental is not one of them. I am trying hard to convince myself that they should have gotten shorter sentences, or some kind of leniency… but i keep imagining that it was my own home, with my partner and daughter home, and 4 obviously dangerous youths have broken in to take my stuff. There’s a lot of bad shit that can happen even if I have the ability to defend myself… and people who put other people into these sorts of life, death, rape, assault sort of circumstances should expect harsh punishment. The bleeding heart liberal in me wants to feel like this sentence is too harsh, but imagining the terror of being put in that situation, I just can’t muster it. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/3 "2013-10-10T16:06:29Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > The bleeding heart liberal in me wants to feel like this sentence is too harsh, but imagining the terror of being put in that situation, I just can’t muster it. But the thing is that they got the long sentences NOT because of the ‘home invasion’ or the “terror” they may have inflicted. No, they got 50 years because one of _them_ was killed. If the homeowner had missed, or had simply wounded the guy, they’d be out in a couple of years - remember, when they entered the house, _they_ were unarmed. They had no intent to terrorize. They received long sentences only due, in some sense, to their bad luck in breaking into a home that not only was occupied when they thought it wasn’t, but that the homeowner was armed (and a good shot)! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/4 "2013-10-10T16:12:28Z")
How can there be two different outcomes for the same death? If it was justifiable homicide when the accused is the homeowner, how could it also be ruled murder when the accused is the other perpetrator?. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/5 "2013-10-10T16:14:54Z")
How do you know they had no intent to terrorize? Maybe they did but they were defeated? If the homeowner wasn’t armed, would they have simply been on their way upon finding out someone was home? 4 people don’t have to be armed to inflict great bodily harm. While I don’t wish death on anyone, I would say justice was served to the one who died - the other three should count themselves lucky. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/6 "2013-10-10T16:18:34Z")
I don’t feel justice was served in this case. I do believe they should be held responsible at some level for the death of thier comrade but 50 years seems excessive in this case. I feel like 10 years would be pushing it. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/7 "2013-10-10T16:19:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How do you know they had no intent to terrorize? Maybe they did but they were defeated? If the homeowner wasn’t armed, would they have simply been on their way upon finding out someone was home? 4 people don’t have to be armed to inflict great bodily harm. Again, though, I think you, too, are mixing up their crime (which obviously deserved punishment) with the almost coincidental fact that one of them got killed. How does the fact that one of them died justify changing their sentence for a crime they had already committed? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/8 "2013-10-10T16:21:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How do you know they had no intent to terrorize? Maybe they did but they were defeated? If the homeowner wasn’t armed, would they have simply been on their way upon finding out someone was home? 4 people don’t have to be armed to inflict great bodily harm. > > While I don’t wish death on anyone, I would say justice was served to the one who died - the other three should count themselves lucky. That’s a lot of maybeing-sticking someone in prison for that many years should be based on just a bit more than that, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/9 "2013-10-10T16:24:19Z")
Would we see this punishment differently if the homeowner’s shot had missed those intruders and killed an innocent bystander across the street? ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/10 "2013-10-10T16:27:54Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > They had no intent to terrorize. Maybe. I wouldn’t expect a gang of clearly poorly trained older boys to understand the effects of home invasion. It’s not that I think the sentence is useful, it’s probably a giant waste of taxpayer money. And I can’t know nearly enough about these guys to know if they can be rehabilitated. Life is full of rolls of the dice. Sometimes they come up in your favor, and sometimes they come up against. Whether or not they knew that something terrible could happen when burglarizing it could certainly be argued that they should have known that something extremely shitty could happen. Is the result perfect justice? Nope, such a thing does not exist… Is the result justice enough… maybe. It’s hard to know. It would probably depend on things like “how likely are these guys to re-offend if released,” and I see no way to know that. When you engage in certain behaviors you assume an increased risk of life-ruining events. Drug trade, burglary, dangerous sexual habits… ect. It doesn’t mean that these guys deserve it, but they certainly weren’t trying to minimize their risk. Clearly these young people were in the practice of making choices with a large potential to negatively impact their lives, and the lives of those around them, and now they are going to cost a bunch of money to keep in jail for a long time… resources that would doubtless be put to better use elsewhere. If they could be rehabilitated they probably should… but, life is full of risks, and they took a bad one, and it didn’t pay off. If this isn’t justice then it is at least justice-adjacent. If the word responsible means anything at all, then it’s hard to not notice that, even though they didn’t kill him, they are definitely responsible for that other young man’s death. What that should mean legally is arguable. We’re not talking about a young mother of 2 that finds out she has brain cancer. There is injustice, and then there’s real injustice. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/11 "2013-10-10T16:29:29Z")
I’m perplexed here. All the sources I’ve found state that Indiana’s felony murder rule relevant to this case is at IC-35-42-1-1-(2), [which is:](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1) > [@](#): > > A person who: > (1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being; > **(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor, or carjacking;** > (3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit: > (A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1); > (B) dealing in or manufacturing methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.1); > (C) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2); > (D) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or > (E) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or > (4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365); commits murder, a felony. But, plainly, the defendants didn’t kill the young man. Anyone know if the doctine that any death resulting from a robbery counts as the robber killing the person comes from a different statute, or case law, or what? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/12 "2013-10-10T16:35:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’m perplexed here. All the sources I’ve found state that Indiana’s felony murder rule relevant to this case is at IC-35-42-1-1-(2), [which is:](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/42/1/35-42-1-1) > > But, plainly, the defendants didn’t kill the young man. Anyone know if the doctine that any death resulting from a robbery counts as the robber killing the person comes from a different statute, or case law, or what? From the second link in the OP: > [@](#): > > The plight of the “Elkhart Four”, as the teens are now known, is a consequence of Indiana’s felony murder statute, a law that allows participants in certain felonies – in this case burglary – to be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the felony. Prosecutors need to prove only that the defendant intended to commit the underlying felony, not that the defendant killed or intended to kill the victim. Most states have adopted some version of this felony murder rule. Apparently, it’s in the burglary statutes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/13 "2013-10-10T16:39:32Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Did the judge and prosecutor have any discretion in applying the law? Could they have found a way to, for lack of a better word, ‘ignore’ it? I’m sure the prosecutor could have chosen to only charge robbery or a related crime. As for the judge, the sentencing for murder in Indiana [reads:](http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar50/ch2.html) > [@](#): > > Sec. 3. (a) A person who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between forty-five (45) and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory sentence being fifty-five (55) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). > (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a person who was: > (1) at least eighteen (18) years of age at the time the murder was committed may be sentenced to: > (A) death; or > (B) life imprisonment without parole; and > (2) at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than eighteen (18) years of age at the time the murder was committed may be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole; So, the lowest sentence he could have handed down was 45 years, which the young man who pled guilty received. Two of them received the advisory sentence of 55 years, and the other 50 (as he didn’t enter the house). [QUOTE=KarlGauss] And, finally, as per my OP’s title, is this justice? [/QUOTE] Not really. As written, the statute is fine: if I break in somewhere, and tussle with the homeowner and end up killing him by accident, that should be murder, because by commiting the robbery I created the dangerous conditions that lead to me killing a person. But, applying it to someone who _hasn’t_ killed anyone, as is apparently possible, is unjust. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/14 "2013-10-10T16:40:38Z")
I have no sympathy for the burglars, but those sentences are definitely excessive. It wasn’t a planned home invasion, it was a burglary. The former deserves life, the latter a couple of years, max. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/15 "2013-10-10T16:40:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That’s a lot of maybeing-sticking someone in prison for that many years should be based on just a bit more than that, don’t you think? There is no maybe about the facts of the event. Four people broke into a house and one got killed. One getting killed is a predictable outcome for the action they took. So is the crime of felony murder. The maybe part is their intent. My statement was in response to KarlGauss who assumed their intent and made to rebut that presumption. Whatever their intent however, it’s irrelevant. There is a simple way to avoid this outcome - don’t break into people’s homes. If you do, you may get killed, and you may go to jail for 50-100 years. I’m fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/16 "2013-10-10T16:45:56Z")
One of the supposed “murderers” was shot trying to drag his friend into a closet for safety, and another never even entered the building. Apparently, one of them didn’t even fight the charge and pleaded guilty…but the judge disregarded that action and gave him what for just like the others. I wonder if there are any limits to what a homeowner can do to an intruder if any consequences for the homeowner’s actions fall on said intruder and compatriots? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/17 "2013-10-10T16:50:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not really. As written, the statute is fine: if I break in somewhere, and tussle with the homeowner and end up killing him by accident, that should be murder, because by commiting the robbery I created the dangerous conditions that lead to me killing a person. But, applying it to someone who _hasn’t_ killed anyone, as is apparently possible, is unjust. The rationale is that by agreeing to participate in the crime, you are complicit in the death - the same way that a get away driver is guilty of murder if the guys inside robbing the bank kill a person. The driver is not the one that pulled the trigger, but was a participant in the crime. Even though it was a perpetrator who was killed, his death was caused by the criminal action. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/18 "2013-10-10T16:53:09Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Again, though, I think you, too, are mixing up their crime (which obviously deserved punishment) with the almost coincidental fact that one of them got killed. How does the fact that one of them died justify changing their sentence for a crime they had already committed? The initial crime was the robbery (or breaking in, etc). The next crime was felony murder. The fact that one got killed is not coincidental - expect to the extent that it occurred during the commission of a felony. So while the crime of robbery has one punishment, the felony murder has another. No mixing of crimes needed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/19 "2013-10-10T16:57:35Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I do understand that all this is totally ‘legal’. What I don’t understand is how justice was served by applying the law in this case . . . IMO justice is never served by applying the felony-murder rule in **any** case. But this is exactly the kind of case it is meant for. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877/20 "2013-10-10T16:57:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > From the second link in the OP:Apparently, it’s in the burglary statutes. Nah, that’s just a reference back to IC-35-42-1-1. Having looked deeper, it seems to come from case law. [This decision](http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999828704NE2d124_1821) quotes only that same statute, 35-42-1-1, but states: > [@](#): > > The statutory language “kills another human being while committing” does not restrict the felony murder provision only to instances in which the felon is the killer, but may also apply equally when, in committing any of the designated felonies, the felon contributes to the death of any person. What strange reasoning, to conclude that “kills another” can also mean “stand nearby while someone else kills another”. I do think the law as written is fine, though, it’s just been interpreted too broadly. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Apparently, one of them didn’t even fight the charge and pleaded guilty…but the judge disregarded that action and gave him what for just like the others. Not so, per the statute I quoted earlier, he gave that one the minimum sentence…which happened to be 45 years, but did give him the minimum. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I wonder if there are any limits to what a homeowner can do to an intruder if any consequences for the homeowner’s actions fall on said intruder and compatriots? The homeowner would face criminal charges of his own if he used force when it wasn’t justified by an immediate threat, so, say, capturing intruders and beating them or making them pleasure-slaves is right out. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-justice/670877.md?page=2)