Then what is? What can those who survived and are prison for over 40 years do to make him fell better? They can’t promise not to do it again-that’s a given. They can’t promise restitution-that’s pretty much an impossibility. What more can the “perps” do to make him feel better? They are young men in prison-their hell has only begun.
I do not intend to be sarcastic, rude or ugly. Is that a legal point, or a moral opinion?
That will work for me.
I do believe that fifty years is too much for this case.
But I am prejudiced, having an unoccupied house burgled and a wife in an attempted armed robbery.
Again though, looking at this in any kind of principled way, it’s a mess.
I’m 100% culpable if the crime is a felony, no matter how incidental or difficult to predict the death may have been. Meanwhile, if it’s not a felony, I’m not cuplable (unless it was simply homicide).
So if, to run out on the restaurant bill, I suggest we swim across lake superior, then climb an electric fence – no problem; it’s a misdemeanor, whatever happens I’m not culpable.
If I were to tell you that in committing a crime, one member of the party dies, you have to ask me “what was the crime?” before you can say whether they are murderers. Are there any other examples of this in law – where whether an action is legal or not depends only on the severity of another action?
Exactly. They intended to victimize him and his family, and they did. There can be no compensation for the victim. It wouldn’t surprise me if he ends up having to defend himself in a civil suit yet. You were the one who seemed to suggest that a "killing and a wounding’ constituted some sort of compensation. We seem to have a difference of opinion over who the victim(s) is/are in this case, eg “their hell has only begun.” Have you, BTW, conceded the knife?
The person who got shot is also the victim. The law sees the four as the perpetrators -felony murder to be precise.
It’s a moral opinion which is also a legal point in some jurisdictions, such as Canada and Kentucky, but not others, such as Indiana and Alabama.
Well, there’s conspiracy, I guess. And whether a given act was legal sex or criminal rape depends only on how old the other participant was; I have to ask you that, which tells me we’re already willing to hinge everything on a single factor regardless of your intent.
Thank you.
Is an accidental death occurring during a crime covered in those jurisdictions?
I believe that fifty years is too long a sentence, but I feel that some incarceration is appropriate.
If it is truly an accident, then in Canada, no.
There are the two offences of manslaughter and criminal homicide causing death, but for both of those offences, the person accused of the crime has to have caused the death. The fact that the death occurred during the course of some other offence being committed by the accused is not enough to say the accused caused the death.
Sure, but that’s not deserving of a 50 year murder-type sentence
Isn’t this the extreme minority rule? I thought most felony murder laws excluded the death of a “co-felon” killed in the act?
Other than that tweak, I fully support the rule. If you commit a violent felony, anyone with a brain knows that you are placing lives in serious danger. Someone gets killed, you go to jail.
Hell, the drunk driver that killed Nick Adenhart got 50 to life in prison for DUI causing death. He didn’t mean to kill the guy. He didn’t mean to commit a felony. He committed what is usually a stupid misdemeanor that is very dangerous, but doesn’t result in harm 999/1000. He still got 50 years.
In Kentucky, crimes involving someone causing a death are in chapter 507, and include:
Murder
(1) A person is guilty of murder when:
(a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except that in any prosecution a person shall not be guilty under this subsection if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance…
(b) Including, but not limited to, the operation of a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of another person.
Manslaughter in the first degree
(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
(a) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
(b) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance…
Manslaughter in the second degree
(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he wantonly causes the death of another person, including, but not limited to, situations where the death results from the person’s:
(a) Operation of a motor vehicle; or
(b) Leaving a child under the age of eight (8) years in a motor vehicle under circumstances which manifest an extreme indifference to human life and which create a grave risk of death to the child, thereby causing the death of the child.
Reckless homicide
(1) A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness he causes the death of another person.
As you can see, murder and first degree manslaughter require the intent to kill or cause serious injury. Second degree manslaughter requires reckless disregard for human life, and reckless homicide requires recklessness. So, it depends on the exact nature of the accidental death.
I would argue that deaths resulting from either manslaughter or reckless homicide are not accidental deaths. The combination of causation plus the mental elements required take the death out of the category of accidental.
YMMV, of course, but that’s my perspective from the legal system I work in.
Right, it depends precisely on what carnivorousplant intends by an “accidental death” occuring during a crime. Something like a getaway driver flying down a residential street at 80 m.p.h. and striking and killing a pedestrian could be called “accidental”, in that the driver didn’t intend to hit the person, but it’s also criminal.
Lets say two people are illegally crossing from one side of a multi-lane freeway to the other, and one of them is struck and killed by truck, and the other makes it all the way across. When it comes to the poor trucker the death is ruled an accident. Can the freeway crosser that lived be held accountable for the death of his friend?
By this non-lawyer’s reading, no. The survivor would have to have caused the death; perhaps by dragging a passed-out-drunk friend across the freeway or something similar. If both were running across of their own free will, I don’t know how it could be argued that the survivor had caused the death of his friend.
In a felony-murder state, if the illegal crossing of the freeway was a listed felony in the murder statute, then yes.
Let’s add another factor to my scenario: Witnesses testify that the person who was struck and killed didn’t want to cross, but the one who survived argued with him until agreed to go.
But it’s a criminal act on its own (e.g. vehicular homicide; dangerous driving causing death; exact name of the offence will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). No need to pull in any sort of felony murder construction.
Only in jurisdictions with a felony murder rule, where J walking is a felony…