Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[Bob Klase]

It was an example of the kind of death, that I read about in the Darwin Awards. Base jumping often involves breaking into buildings to jump off them, this seems like something that could be a felony

The fact that it seems like something that could be a felony doesn't mean it is a felony.

or do you have no problem with people breaking into your house to do things that you do not give them permission even if they don't steal anything?

If something is not a felony then it won't be treated as a felony by the legal system. Makes no difference whether I have a problem with it or not.

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't see a problem with thought experiments. I cited an illegal activity, the breaking and entering associated with base jumping, and that can result in deaths. I don't see why deaths during the commission of a crime should not be applied in such situations.

I don't have a problem with thought experiments. You're addressing me as though I've said that the OP crime warrants a murder charge, which is something I explicitly disagreed with.

Why don't you adress my thought experiment about the tax cheat? It is clear that simply being in the commission of any kind of crime doesn't legally make you guilty of murder or morally make you responsible for the death. I'm assuming that you'll agree with me that just because an individual is cheating on his taxes, it doesn't alter his relationship to a death that would occur in his vicinity.

 

[Bob Klase]

I don't see a problem with thought experiments. I cited an illegal activity, the breaking and entering associated with base jumping, and that can result in deaths. I don't see why deaths during the commission of a crime should not be applied in such situations.

You're using the word "crime" as if it means exactly the same thing as the word "felony". It doesn't.

 

[Bob Klase]

When I was addressing ponderingturtle's example, I was addressing the park officials' level of ethical/social responsibility, which is a separate issue from whether they are legally responsible.

It's a separate issue. We don't put people in jail for not meeting their ethical/social responsibilities.

 

[Bob Klase]

So it's murder in this case, but not murder in a similar situation?

Could be in some similar situations, not in others. Perhaps you want to give a specific situation so we can see why it's only "similar" and not "exactly the same". But based on your previous posts it seems that if it's not exactly the same then it's just an analogy you don't like, so I won't hold my breath.

Why is that so, or is this arbitrarily decided?

I'd guess it's so because that's how the law is written. Hard to say since no one (including you) actually seems concerned about what the law actually says. It can also be arbitrarily decided because prosecutors have the power to sometimes make arbitrary decisions.

(And "because the law says so" is a poor argument at best. If the law said "standing 5 feet from someone that is killed is murder", that wouldn't make it ethically or morally equivalent to murder, or even logically).

Gee, that would be a really good point if anyone was actually building the strawmen you keep knocking down.

ETA: Just in case you're really interested in facts:

http://felonymurderfl.org/about/

The Felony Murder Rule, as used in Florida, states that anyone involved in certain felonies (armed robbery, kidnapping, rape), and if in the commission of that felony, no matter their level of involvement, a death occurs, all people involved in the felony will be charged with First Degree Murder and sentenced to Life Without the Possibility of Parole, or the Death Penalty, the only two options for sentencing.

That link also gives you 13 points that support your opinion. I even agree with some of them and think the law should be rewritten (but not completely overturned).

 

[Bob Klase]

Come back when you can say something other than "That's just your opinion!"

Guess I'll just have to wait until you present something other than your opinion.

 

[Cavemonster]

It's a separate issue. We don't put people in jail for not meeting their ethical/social responsibilities.

It's a related issue. We don't put people in jail for ethical reasons, but we evaluate our laws that do put peole in jail based on ethical/social concerns.

Just like there is little debate about whether abortion is legal, but a lot of discussion about whether it should be. The legal issue of this case was settled on the first page of this thread, what's more interesting is whether the law is just.

You're right that it doesn't answer the question of whether he will go to jail. It asks the more important question of whether the application of law that will send him to jail is is desirable in the broader sense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The fact that it seems like something that could be a felony doesn't mean it is a felony.

Why should someones death during a misdemeanor be so different than one during a felony?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're using the word "crime" as if it means exactly the same thing as the word "felony". It doesn't.

I don't see why misdemeanors that result in death should be treated differently than felonies.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't like this law, it blurs the relationship between action and responsibility.

Say Al robs two liquor stores, accompanied first by Bob and then by Carl. The first robbery goes as planned and they run off with the till. In the second robbery, Carl freaks out and shoots the clerk before they run off.

If Al gets caught for the first robbery, he's charged as a robber. If he gets caught for the second robbery, he's charged as a robber and a murderer, even though his actions and motives are exactly the same as the first.

I don't like laws that tack on an "you got unlucky" penalty to the penalty for criminal actions and motives.

If Al doesn't rob any stores, he has nothing to worry about. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The question of what to do when an illegal or irresponsible action leads to disproportionate consequences is a good one. In New England, we had the case of the Station nightclub fire.

Basically, a band went on stage at an overcrowded nightclub and started their act. The stage had some soundproofing on the sides to prevent massive echoing in the space, but this was really just packing materials that were not fire retardant.

....

How do you judge something like that?

They were there to see the band "Great White". Perhaps if they had shown better taste in music, they would all be alive today.

 

[WildCat]

Breaking onto someones building is not exactly legal.

Did they "break into" a building or did they jump from an accessible part of it?

Also, there are different classes of felonies. APerhaps the law only applies to the more serious classes?

And trespassing is usually a misdemeanor.

 

[Lithrael]

I don't see why misdemeanors that result in death should be treated differently than felonies.

Because felonies are by definition the serious crimes that you want to be more hardcore about enforcing in order to discourage them. Some places have a three strikes rule for armed robbery - why should they treat armed robbery differently from other felonies?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Did they "break into" a building or did they jump from an accessible part of it?

They often go to the roof and other areas not open to the public, and it is often before the building is open, so breaking and entering can be applicable.

Also, there are different classes of felonies. APerhaps the law only applies to the more serious classes?

Why is it morally different? If you are committing a crime you are comitting a crime. Holding people responsible for the results of their crime even if unintended is the idea here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because felonies are by definition the serious crimes that you want to be more hardcore about enforcing in order to discourage them. Some places have a three strikes rule for armed robbery - why should they treat armed robbery differently from other felonies?

There is a difference between treating different crimes differently, and treating crimes that result in someones death differently. If you are held responsible for unintended consequences of one crime why shouldn't you be held responsible for the unintended consequences of the other?

 

[WildCat]

They often go to the roof and other areas not open to the public, and it is often before the building is open, so breaking and entering can be applicable.

Is this a felony specified in the Law of Parties for a murder charge?

Why is it morally different? If you are committing a crime you are comitting a crime. Holding people responsible for the results of their crime even if unintended is the idea here.

I'm not making morality judgements. It's a legal issue, which shouldn't be confused with moral issues.

For example, it's immoral to call your mother a bitch or to cheat at a game of Monopoly, but it's certainly not illegal.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think one of the issues here is that in commission of certain types of crime, you give victims reasonable cause to suspect you may be a threat to their life. It is by providing that reasonable fear that you create additional risk.

If someone is stealing a car, it is reasonable to assume they may become violent if I try to stop them. If someone robs a bank with a loaded gun or mugs someone, these all carry a clear escalated risk of violence. A death stemming from these elevated risk conditions can reasonably be considered at least partially the fault of someone who initiated those conditions.

Take as a counterexample cheating on taxes, or littering. It doesn't create a comparable situation of elevated risk. Now if someone slipped on a banana peel I left on the ground, that's another story.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'd guess it's so because that's how the law is written. Hard to say since no one (including you) actually seems concerned about what the law actually says.

Maybe because some people (including me) actually feel that they can disagree with a law. Gasp! Awe!

When you figure that out, maybe future debate will actually get somewhere.

 

[Lonewulf]

Guess I'll just have to wait until you present something other than your opinion.

I did. I made points based in logic. They just tend to go ignored.

For instance:

If there is no "attempted murder" possible under the motivations, how can there be "Murder II"? Attempted murder between the driver and occupant, not the driver and the pedestrian he was trying to run down. I'm not arguing what's actually in the books, I'm asking for the logic behind the decision.

This has gone unanswered, or I missed the answer.

 

[Bob Klase]

Why should someones death during a misdemeanor be so different than one during a felony?

I would guess at least part of the reason is that misdemeanor's are minor crimes (including things like jaywalking and littering) that aren't likely to result in someone being hurt or killed.

Felonies (at least the ones generally covered by the law in question) are major crimes that have a much higher chance of someone being hurt or killed.