I have no qualms with the long sentences and I support felony murder rule application.
Suppose this hypothetical in which I think felony murder is the just way to deal with a situation:
Feuding spouses going through a nasty divorce. Husband decides it would be easier for him if wife dies. So husband cuts the brake lines to wife’s car. Wife indeed gets into a horrible car crash which kills a random motorist. Wife survives.
The wife drove the car but is not charged with a crime. As far as the law is concerned her actions are not criminal.
The husband didn’t target the random motorist but he committed a crime that presented a grave danger that someone would get killed. I have no problem charging him with first degree murder related to the felony tampering.
Or, let’s not.
The universe is subject to events outside our control and can be unfair. We aim to make laws however that are fair, and are based on factors such as intent.
[/QUOTE]
They intended to commit a felony that could lead to unfairness in general, and deaths in particular, thereby risking people’s lives based on events outside anyone’s control. If your intent is to fire a gun into a crowd of innocents, and my intent is to fire a gun into a crowd of innocents, we’re both guilty of the same intent; if one of us happens to rack up a body count, and the other one happens to miss every vital organ, what’s a fair punishment?
Isn’t that always the case? If we drop felony murder from the books, what you’re saying applies once you’re already on the hook for, say, good old-fashioned cold-blooded first-degree murder for hire, or whatever. If we can execute for treason, “you may as well kill anyone that would hinder your escape or make a conviction more likely” as well. And if we take capital punishment off the table entirely, then doesn’t life-without-parole become the new well-shucks-now-that-my-arsonist’s-ways-have-resulted-in-foreseeable-deaths-it-can’t-get-any-worse-for-me-so-why-not-run-and-gun-my-way-to-freedom?
When compiling which crimes demand the perpetrator’s death to achieve justice, or put the universe in harmony, as Bone was alluding to, I’m confident in stating that burglary doesn’t make the cut.
There’s going to be problems if there is no difference in punishments between burglary and murder. Possible solution: Make the punishment for murder even tougher. We kill the murderer, apply CPR to revive him…then kill him again!
Well, that’s the thing, he doesn’t propose imposing the death penalty for burglars, just that it’d be more just and harmoneous if the burglars were to die. It’s quite perplexing.
Maybe. But, if they think no one is home and that all they have to do is walk in, take what they want, and leave, then, no, they may not consider all the potential consequences. Again, this type of superficial reasoning is typical of younger individuals. And, again, I think of what I and my friends used to do - we did not even begin to think of what might happen as a result of what we were about to do. Likewise, I think it’s quite possible that the teens in this case didn’t have a clue, not even close, that they were basically risking their lives.
The more I think about these events, and the more I think about the comments in this thread, the more I’m beginning to realize that it’s the young age of these kids/teens/delinquents that has me so outraged. It’s a bad law applied in the wrong situation. Do we really want to hold such young (and presumably naive) individuals to the same standards that we do for older, more worldly and experienced adults? Is taking their freedom away, forever, the best we can do?
(and, yes, as you say, I “call them ‘kids’ because it serves (my) point” ;))
It seems you are equivocating. Burglary has a specific penalty. Felony murder has a specific penalty. They are different. Your response makes it seem like you don’t comprehend the difference. Do you?
Lesson learned for those four.
I know you’re trying to paint these four in the best possible light - they didn’t know the risks, didn’t understand the consequences, didn’t think anyone was home, tried to flee, were only there for petty theft, were just kids, etc. The question is, why?
I know and understand the term-I still disagree with the concept when applied to this case.
Has anyone provided any links to the contrary? Requests for clarifying information that contradict these assumptions have been made more than once, but until such cites are given, we can only work with the few cites we’ve got. So the question isn’t “why?”-The question is “Why not?”
Yeah. You’re quite right in identifying that giving them 50 years, at this age, is excessive. There’s a big difference between getting out of jail when you’re 28 and getting out of jail when you’re 68… that difference is basically a life sentence
Unfortunately, because of the statutes involved the judge did not have the leeway or responsibility to give more reasonable sentences (well, he could have, by 5 years.) The end result of a “tough on crime” mentality that wins elections, but isn’t the sort of reform that the prison system actually needs, IMHO.
Proposal: if we must have a felony-murder rule, let it be thus:
A person commits the crime of murder if he or she commits or attempts to commit [whatever felonies deemed appropriate] and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person other than a participant.
That way, if you rob a bank and cause a policeman to accidentally shoot a customer, you’re on the hook for murder. If your co-robber gets gunned down, well, he doesn’t need to be avenged via the law, he’s a criminal.
But lives are always at risk. And just about any action beyond sleeping, eating and sitting still will increase our risk.
Where do we draw the line; at what point is someone culpable?
These sentences are already, to me, pretty preposterous, but what about if a girl convinces her boyfriend to run out on a restaurant bill, and she trips and hits her head, and dies. He’s now a murderer?
Correct. There are crimes already where the punishment is severe enough that there is no longer any further deterrence to committing homicide.
Burglary is not such a crime, but with “felony murder” on the books, it sometimes is.
