So the getaway driver can be charged with murder, even if they were unaware the other criminals in the crew were armed when they went to break into a place and steal some stuff. There are similar collective guilt laws in other states as well. I know the most about Texas’s because I was called as part of a jury pool for a case where someone was going to be tried for murder(life sentence) under the law of parties and they hadn’t pulled the trigger, said they didn’t even know the guy who had pulled the trigger had a gun. But up for felony murder anyway.
I’d like to amend my previous answer. I support the felony murder rule so long as it is applied judiciously and logically. I think a person who involves themselves in a crime that has a good chance of turning violent shares in the consequences for that.
I think sentencing should take into account the totality of the circumstances and should be applied with justice in mind.
I definitely agree that the prison system should be focused more towards rehabilitation. The goal should be to reduce recividism where possible and get people lives back in order. When this is not possible, the goal is to separate out those who cannot be trusted to act safely in society permanently.
I agree with the principle. If you agree to participate in a crime, you should accept responsibility for all of the consequences that result from that crime.
Ohio Rev. Code 2903.02 Murder.
(A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.
(B)** No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree **and that is not a violation of section 2903.03 or 2903.04 of the Revised Code.
(C) Division (B) of this section does not apply to an offense that becomes a felony of the first or second degree only if the offender previously has been convicted of that offense or another specified offense.
(D)** Whoever violates this section is guilty of murder, **and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code.
I agree with the felony murder rule for the most part.
If all three participants pleaded not guilty and were found guilty at trial, then I say they all go down for murder.
If Isaac, testified against the other two, pleaded guilty to whatever the robbery charge was, then I could agree to him facing a lesser charge in the death of the clerk.
I think it’s worth parsing the different degrees of intent and the actual intent of the various members. I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that someone who was only the driver and played no physical part in the assault should face the exact same penalty. I would hope that prosecutors, when they try these kinds of cases, choose to treat these various participants differently.
The fruits of the crime concept. If Isaac was to profit from the operation then he can accept his fate as well… It’s also an effective way of getting those in minor roles to flip on those in major roles…
Yes, if you agree to participate in a murder, you should accept responsibility for all of the consequences that result from murder.
Just like when you agree to go to work, you accept all responsibility for any negligent accidents that happen in your company. Because the company only exists and causes deaths because people like you agree to work for it. Even though you had no knowledge of the negligence, nor any expectation that there would be negligence.
(I think this form of argument is called casuistry)
If justice is perceived as not being fair, the it will not engender social stability.
Justice is to our modern minds essentially another way of saying fairness.
When people say “no justice, no peace,” they’re calling for fairness and other similar things, not just stability.
Otherwise we would be happy with older forms of law, in whichp the outcome was determined by the social status of the subjects. That’s socially stable, but not fair.
I don’t think any concept similar to felony murder exists in Canada, where I live, and ever since I’ve learned that it exists in the United States I’ve thought of this as one of the weirder parts of the American justice system. I think it’s completely ridiculous, and I’m really surprised to see that it seems to be so popular in this thread.
If so, then I’ll refute your first point by saying you did agree to participate in a crime. Let’s say an armed robbery. You may not have planned on any murders occurring but you helped create a situation where people with guns were breaking laws.
On your second point, I would say there is a social benefit from limiting liability of employees who work for a company. It allows companies to hire employees and run their operations, which is generally useful to society as a whole.
There’s no equivalent social benefit for limiting the liability of people who are committing crimes. Quite the opposite. We want to discourage people from committing crimes. If the felony murder law makes it impossible for a criminal to convince other people to join him in committing a crime and the crime consequently doesn’t occur, then great. The law is achieving its purpose.
He will probably die in prison because last I heard (I don’t keep up with him closely), God had issued him a summons to Her bosom in the form of lung cancer. Which, before anyone gets too weepy, means he got a quarter century more time on Earth then the clerk.
For this to work, you need budding criminals to delve into the intricacies of the legal code to understand exactly what level of responsibility they have under a variety of possible outcomes, AND be concerned enough about it to make a sensible risk-averse decision when asked to participate.
Until this is the case, what you get is a bunch of mopes locked up for the rest of their lives (on our dime) because they were dumb enough to go along with a criminal plan. We have the highest rate of incarceration in the world and seem to still think that crime will stop if we just lock more people up for longer periods of time.
This one is tough for me. I understand the concept, and it makes sense to me, but then clearly there is a difference between pulling the trigger and driving. The consequences for being the getaway driver should be serious, but the consequences for pulling the trigger even more so. But then, what if it wasn’t a robbery but a drive-by shooting they were going to engage in. In that one, the driver is possibly even more culpable than the shooter.
I can see why a person who’s an accessory to a murder should be punished for it. Making it precisely equivalent to actual murder, though, is simply not justice. Skald’s cousin should not have been sent to prison for life.
What benefit did society gain from locking the man up forever?