Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[SezMe]

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the woman is not at all responsible in the first second instance, and partially responsible in the second first. A scientist would say that whether the woman was a willing participant is the single control of the "experiment."

Good example but nit picked for clarity.

Therefore, the question is simple: Should a person committing a felony be punished for the unintended death of someone who was a willing participant in that felony? Or, to put it another way: Should someone be charged with murder when the victim was herself partly responsible for her own death, due to her participation in the felony?

With murder, no. With a lesser but still major feloney, yes.

 

[BPSCG]

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the woman is not at all responsible in the first second instance, and partially responsible in the second first. A scientist would say that whether the woman was a willing participant is the single control of the "experiment."

Good example but nit picked for clarity.

Argh. You're right.

Therefore, the question is simple: Should a person committing a felony be punished for the unintended death of someone who was a willing participant in that felony? Or, to put it another way: Should someone be charged with murder when the victim was herself partly responsible for her own death, due to her participation in the felony?

With murder, no. With a lesser but still major feloney, yes.

Why not with murder? Why should the fact that the woman was at least partially responsible for her own death get the driver off?

When you say he should be charged with a lesser, but major felony, I assume you mean a felony that involves a wrongful death, such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, or something like that - not just car thievery. Is that correct?

I'm not at all sure where I come down on this, frankly, so I'm asking probing questions to anyone who will answer them.

Here's another question: Was the woman's death a wrongful death? I think you can take both sides:

1) Wrongful - she herself was not threatening the SUV owner.
2) Not wrongful - she was a willing participant in a crime that got her killed.

The law seems to want to have it both ways. The guy that shot her did not kill her wrongfully; the guy that did not shoot her, by his felonious actions, got her killed wrongfully.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If the driver had a gun and shot the owner, the female accomplice could (quite rightly) be charged with murder as she was the willing participant in a crime that got someone else killed. Makes sense, then, that Option 2 is the correct one.

Throw the book at the bastard for what he did, but don't make tenuous contentions to bulk up his charge sheet.

 

[shuize]

I don't really have a problem with the felony-murder rule. When one undertakes to commit a serious crime and someone dies during the course of that crime, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to make the one who initiated that course of events bear the responsibility for the death.

As noted above, it's easy enough to avoid getting caught in the felony-murder trap: Don't commit felonies.

I know various states have different versions of the rule. Some require the felony to be a "violent felony". Others, I believe, limit the scope of liability to only include those killed during the course of the initial felony. I understand in many states there is also an analogous misdemeanor-manslaughter rule.

 

[SezMe]

Taking your post in inverse order:

I'm not at all sure where I come down on this, frankly, so I'm asking probing questions to anyone who will answer them.

I'm with you in that I don't have a firm answer in this matter. I read arguments from the various perspectives here and can see some merit in many of them.

When you say he should be charged with a lesser, but major felony, I assume you mean a felony that involves a wrongful death, such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, or something like that - not just car thievery. Is that correct?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. I was having a brain freeze at the moment and couldn't think of the proper terms. But you did - thanks.

Why not with murder? Why should the fact that the woman was at least partially responsible for her own death get the driver off?

Because it seems to me that the crime of murder is meant for those who's intent is the death of another. The other classes of murder that you cite seem to fit the bill better in this case. I view him as having some responsibility for her death by his actions even though I have no doubt he did not intend the actual outcome.

Since the law, itself, and the prosecution of the law spend no small effort on the issue of intent I think that must be at the forefront of our deliberations. He did not intend to kill the woman but he shares responsibility for her death. Thus "manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, or something like that" as you suggest. I am not sufficiently schooled in the law to be more precise than that.

 

[Bob Klase]

Because it seems to me that the crime of murder is meant for those who's intent is the death of another.

The crime of murder is whatever the law defines it as being. I believe that only first degree murder requires the intent to kill.

He did not intend to kill the woman but he shares responsibility for her death. Thus "manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, or something like that" as you suggest.

It really makes no difference at all what you call it. What's important is the penalties. If it's designated a felony and the penalty is (for example) 20 years to life then why does it make any difference if it's defined as the crime of "murder" or crime of "being stupid enough to be present at someones' death under circumstances that get you in jail"?

If you want to complain about what it's called then you're just wasting breath. If you want to complain about the penalty then take some time and find out exactly what the possible penalties are.

 

[rwguinn]

If the driver had a gun and shot the owner, the female accomplice could (quite rightly) be charged with murder as she was the willing participant in a crime that got someone else killed. Makes sense, then, that Option 2 is the correct one.

Throw the book at the bastard for what he did, but don't make tenuous contentions to bulk up his charge sheet.

I believe that is why there is a "second Degree Murder" charge on the books.
They had to call it something, and Manslaughter was taken. Crudstunk just didn't carry the stigma that is needed, and "being stupid enough to be present at someones' death under circumstances that (normally just) get you in jail" takes up too much room. (fixed that for ya, Bob Klase)

 

[gumboot]

I personally think the law is being misused in this case. Firstly, there's two separate aspects of law being considered here.

The first is felony-murder - or the act by which an accidental or unintentional killing is upgraded to murder.

The second is conspiracy - or the act by which the total consequences of a group action and equally shared amongst all members of the group, regardless of which individual committed which specific act.

The reasoning for each of these circumstances is very clear.

In the felony murder case, the basic principle is as follows:

If, during the commission of a felony, you commit an act with disregard for the safety of others, and are aware that said act could result in death, you are guilty of murder rather than a lesser homicide charge.

The text book example is the guy who is racing away from a bank robbery in a car, and runs through a pedestrian crossing, killing a pedestrian by accident. Normally this would be some lesser driving charge such as dangerous driving causing death or vehicular manslaughter or something. However, in this instance your willful disregard for human life was a direct consequence of your efforts to successfully commit a felony (robbing the bank) thus the crime has been upgraded to murder.

To me, this is entirely legitimate.

The conspiracy theory works in the same way. The basic principle is:

All conspirators to a crime are equally responsible for any of the actions of any member of the conspiracy, during the commission of the crime.

In other words, once you agree to cooperate with a group of people in order to commit a crime, you become responsible for anything any member of that group does. So if Tommy goes ballistic in the bank and starts shooting people, you're all responsible.

The main purpose of each of these crimes is twofold. Firstly, as a deterrent, it attempts to prevent crime escalation by encouraging criminals to be more careful. Fact is people will commit crimes, people will conspire. At least if there's a death sentence over their heads they might be a bit more careful about making sure no one is killed during the crime.

The second is punishment. Committing the crime is bad enough, but knowingly allowing the crime to escalate (by letting a fellow conspirator go mental, or by racing away from the scene like a lunatic) put the public in increased danger, all so you could pull off your illegal act.

 

[Bob Klase]

Crudstunk just didn't carry the stigma that is needed(fixed that for ya, Bob Klase)

I dunno. I think Crudstunk might be a nice term for it.

 

[SezMe]

The crime of murder is whatever the law defines it as being.

No poop. Who knew?

It really makes no difference at all what you call it. What's important is the penalties.

And since what it is called (or better, is the charge) determines what the penalties are, then you can be charged for just blowing smoke.

 

[Bob Klase]

No poop. Who knew?

Apparently you didn't know or you would have understood that the crime of murder is often applied to those who didn't intend the death of another.

And since what it is called (or better, is the charge) determines what the penalties are, then you can be charged for just blowing smoke.

So if the penalties for murder are changed they have to come up with a different name for it?

 

[luchog]

Yes, robbery is a high-risk behavior. But it isn't murder, or even attempted murder. Period.

Gross evasion of the issue. For a robbery to work, there has to be a threat of greivous bodily harm. Without that threat, it's not a robbery, it's just aggressive panhandling.

A death which occurs as the result of a robbery is a direct consequence of the robbery, and the threat of harm inherent to the robbery. The use of lethal force in response to a robbery is permitted because the robbery itself is a threat of lethal force.

 

[Lonewulf]

Edited for rule 12 violation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Why isn't breaking and entering such a crime? Or do the parachutes change things?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Or assault.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because society does not have as much interest in deterring the commission of misdemeanors, by definition. If it did, it would make them into felonies.

But why does that change ones responcibility for the results of their actions? If someone dies because you are doing something illegal why does the nature of what you were doing that was illegal matter so much?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Throw the book at the bastard for what he did, but don't make tenuous contentions to bulk up his charge sheet.

But that takes all the fun out of being a prosecutor though.