Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail
87 replies, posted
If during the commission of a felony someone dies as the result of that felony being committed then everyone who committed the felony can be held responsible for the death(s).
The real problem is why was he committing the crime, and how effective is this punishment going to really be?
I don't give a rats ass about Indiana Law. It's the principle of the matter that is on trial here. Does this kid deserve to lose 55 years of his life for a mistake that none of them could possibly have known to end this way?
Was it stupid? Fucking right it was stupid. They never should have done it. But now that it's done, is it not reasonable to think that him losing his friend is a punishment in it's self? Give a few years and some community service, but don't take away his life. By handing out the 55 year sentence, they have allowed for two lives to be lost.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232580]Is 55 years for a 16 year old reasonable for an unarmed robbery? As I mentioned earlier, when he gets out his life will have been long gone. He will have no friends. No family. No hopes of a career.
The justice system is supposed to be about assigning an appropriate punishment for the crime. Is taking this young mans life away justifiable when him and his friend intended no harm on anyone? They intended to steal, not kill. Is such a harsh punishment reasonable?[/QUOTE]
again, you're mistaken as to which crime he committed. robbery would be the forceful taking of an item on one's person. what these 5 kids did was burglary.
[QUOTE=gudman;47232624]How can a person be held accountable for something a third party did. No murder (as in, felony) even happened AFAIK - the home owner was justified to defend his property. Why are his actions are placed on an accomplice of the killed guy, someone who had no power over it at the time of the event. "If they weren't committing a crime, it wouldn't have happened" doesn't really look like something justice system should follow really - if the poor fella wasn't born, that wouldn't have happened too, let's put his parents on trial.
And even then, even they are to be held accountable, why murder - his actions led to another person's death, of which he had no prior knowledge, that's manslaughter.[/QUOTE]
because felony murder is different to murder.
also oops, turns out the 5 kids who planned this home invasion weren't unarmed like this guardian article suggests.
[url]http://www.elkharttruth.com/crime-fire-courts/2012/10/23/More-details-on-attempted-burglary-revealed.html[/url]
[url]http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09121402lmb.pdf[/url]
they grabbed knives from the kitchen and one of them was carrying a .22
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232667][b]again, you're mistaken as to which crime he committed. robbery would be the forceful taking of an item on one's person. what these 5 kids did was burglary.[/b]
because felony murder is different to murder.
also oops, turns out the 5 kids who planned this home invasion weren't unarmed like this guardian article suggests.
[url]http://www.elkharttruth.com/crime-fire-courts/2012/10/23/More-details-on-attempted-burglary-revealed.html[/url]
[url]http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09121402lmb.pdf[/url]
they grabbed knives from the kitchen and one of them was carrying a .22[/QUOTE]
Again your nitpicking at terminology. The message is the same. You're not stupid, you understand what I'm saying.
This punishment does not fit the crime. And that is something that law is supposed to be about.
You pull up quotes from law books like they help you in any way. Ending a life is not justifiable for the unexpected end of another.
Also, if I heard gun shots, I'd grab a fucking knife too. Tell me you wouldn't.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232667]
because felony murder is different to murder.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I already found that out, my bad.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232682]Again your nitpicking at terminology. The message is the same. You're not stupid, you understand what I'm saying.
This punishment does not fit the crime. And that is something that law is supposed to be about.
You pull up quotes from law books like they help you in any way. Ending a life is not justifiable for the unexpected end of another.
Also, if I heard gun shots, I'd grab a fucking knife too. Tell me you wouldn't.[/QUOTE]
if you can't even properly distinguish or understand law, why should i bother arguing?
[editline]28th February 2015[/editline]
and now you're trying to make the kids who armed themselves with knives as victims??
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232701]if you can't even properly distinguish or understand law, why should i bother arguing?[/QUOTE]
Oooh I mixed up robbery with burglary. Is that all you can argue at this point?
You know 55 years is unreasonable.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47232628]If during the commission of a felony someone dies as the result of that felony being committed then everyone who committed the felony can be held responsible for the death(s).[/QUOTE]
I can understand being held responsible [I]in some way[/I] for the death of his accomplice, I just don't think that it should be considered [I]murder[/I]. I agree with Mort Stroodle here, it should be manslaughter at the most. He was [I]responsible[/I] for someone's death, but he did not have a conscious intent to cause death to his accomplice. If it was a [I]deliberate setup[/I] to get his accomplice killed, then it would make sense to charge as a murder.
Note: this is my opinion; I'm not really debating legality
EDIT: I fully support the felony murder law when one of the [I]victims[/I] of the crime dies for whatever reason, but not when one of the perpetrators dies. They all probably knew and accepted the risks of what they were doing, so I don't think they really even [I]deserve justice for their death[/I] in any way. Rule it as a self-inflicted death, actually.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232641]I don't give a rats ass about Indiana Law. It's the principle of the matter that is on trial here. Does this kid deserve to lose 55 years of his life for a mistake that none of them could possibly have known to end this way?[/QUOTE]
Why are you trying to argue this without respecting where its being argued. Things dont work the same way everywhere, especially on the state level.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47232710]Why are you trying to argue this without respecting where its being argued. Things dont work the same way everywhere, especially on the state level.[/QUOTE]
Because some states find it illegal to have an orange in the bathtub on a Sunday.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232538]Neither of them committed murder. The responsibility of ones death isn't in the act of theft, it is in the act of the home owner defending himself from intruders. [B]The homeowner committed the murder[/B]. The surviving robber however, through being an accomplice, could reasonably be held accountable for manslaughter as his choice to support his friend, unknowingly lead to his death.[/QUOTE]
The homeowner committed justifiable homicide. Not murder.
It's entirely reasonable to pin the death on the accomplices though (which is where it becomes felony murder), but I do agree the sentence is excessive.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;47232751]It's entirely reasonable to pin the death on the accomplices though (which is where it becomes felony murder)[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to doubt that I agree even with this. All perpetrators of the crime took the risk of being defended against, so I think the one who died should take on the full responsibility of dying. It's a self-inflicted death, unless they were coerced into committing the felony.
I don't know anything of the legality, I just think 55 years is far too harsh of a punishment. As I said, you're essentially ending two lives by going through with this.
I don't really get this at all. Two kids break into a house and both get shot by the owner in defense of their home, one dies whilst the other gets charged. Apparently this constitutes murder? I mean situations like this are always sketchy but murder is a long stretch. Furthermore, how does the murder charge apply to the surviving kid? Wouldn't it just be breaking and entry?
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;47233074]I don't really get this at all. Two kids break into a house and both get shot by the owner in defense of their home, one dies whilst the other gets charged. Apparently this constitutes murder? I mean situations like this are always sketchy but murder is a long stretch. Furthermore, how does the murder charge apply to the surviving kid? Wouldn't it just be breaking and entry?[/QUOTE]
read page 1.
felony murder rule.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232435]if a criminal dies during an act of illegal behavior (such as robbery), their accomplice is accountable for their deaths and they can be charged with murder.[/QUOTE]
That is quite possible the stupidest logic I have ever heard, I knew the american justice system had its little hiccups but that's just ridiculous.
I can understand if the robbers themselves killed someone and all shared the charge but I fail to see how anyone thought this was a good idea, you may as well just go and charge their families for giving birth to them and not raising them better while your at it.
A teenager who broke into a house is facing 55 years in jail because private prisons in bed with the courts.
It's that simple.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232487]accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.
in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.[/QUOTE]
This is stupid. A charge of involuntary manslaughter makes more sense given the circumstances. He deserves time, but not [I]55 years[/I]' worth of time. Another kid is getting 45 years. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is justified.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232487]accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.
in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.[/QUOTE]
Invalid, since the robber didn't kill anyone in this case.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47233301]Invalid, since the robber didn't kill anyone in this case.[/QUOTE]
obviously not considering they charged the 4 kids with what i have been explaining for the past page.
Why not, you know, try to rehabilitate a kid who made the stupid decision of breaking into a house instead of destroying his life?
[QUOTE=ShaunOfTheLive;47232709]I fully support the felony murder law when one of the [I]victims[/I] of the crime dies for whatever reason, but not when one of the perpetrators dies. They all probably knew and accepted the risks of what they were doing, so I don't think they really even [I]deserve justice for their death[/I] in any way. Rule it as a self-inflicted death, actually.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=archival;47233242]That is quite possible the stupidest logic I have ever heard, I knew the american justice system had its little hiccups but that's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
One of the risks is that they could be charged with the outcome. That's how it works, if someone initiates a crime, they are responsible for any injuries that happen as a result of the crime. This extents to accomplices, one of them was killed during the commission of a crime they initiated, ergo they are responsible for their death. The law doesn't care if you shot them or got them shot, your actions lead to their death.
I'm not arguing that it's right or wrong, just clarifying how it works.
Makes a good example for other people that are pondering committing crime with their fellows if the charge goes through. Wouldn't be surprised if that was the point of the law in the first place.
I would expect this is at the Supreme Court just so it can set a new precedent for trials of felony murder so that this doesn't happen again. Will be shit if it doesn't end up that way though. 55 years is a ridiculous amount of time and doesn't fit the crime.
[QUOTE=Axznma;47233653]Makes a good example for other people that are pondering committing crime with their fellows if the charge goes through. Wouldn't be surprised if that was the point of the law in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Not really.
Felony murder rule is designed such that anyone killed because of the commission of a felony is the responsibility of the person (or, in this case, people) committing the crime.
An example my old criminal law professor gave was someone using a gun against an attacker, and the bullet missing and hitting a bystander. Assuming the shooter acted in self defense, who is responsible for the bystander's death? The shooter? If they acted reasonably, then no. The person who caused them to shoot (the attacker) is at fault.
It wasn't really designed to apply to conspirators, but there's nothing prohibiting it. Consider if the shooter hit a bystander instead of one of the criminals - perhaps they have paper-thin walls and had no idea they would hit someone on the other side.
I don't know if the spirit of the law was applicable here considering the circumstances, though.
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;47233704]I would expect this is at the Supreme Court just so it can set a new precedent for trials of felony murder so that this doesn't happen again. Will be shit if it doesn't end up that way though. 55 years is a ridiculous amount of time and doesn't fit the crime.[/QUOTE]
better expect world peace while you are at it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47233502]One of the risks is that they could be charged with the outcome. That's how it works, if someone initiates a crime, they are responsible for any injuries that happen as a result of the crime. This extents to accomplices, one of them was killed during the commission of a crime they initiated, ergo they are responsible for their death. The law doesn't care if you shot them or got them shot, your actions lead to their death.
I'm not arguing that it's right or wrong, just clarifying how it works.[/QUOTE]
Remember kids, if you're going to commit a crime, be safe and look out for one another!
This is sounding like the only purpose of this law is to be another deterrent against crime as it can be used in situations like this, as if the threat of being legally killed wasn't already enough?
Fairly certain any form of duty of care would go out the window considering your already breaking the law, this pretty much means there are laws on how you can break the law.
In the federal justice system, if you are involved in an act of crime, you are held accountable by every single crime directly or indirectly committed.
Let's take for example this scenario:
There are 4 guys who were involved in a heist of a jewelry store: A getaway driver, the 2 guys doing the heist, and the planner. The driver and 'do-ers' go to the heist, whereas the planner stays far away in total safety.
---
At this point, all of them are guilty of conspiring to commit a felony.
---
The unarmed 'do-ers' break in and trip a silent alarm the planner didn't know about.
---
Now they are all committing a felony (considering the price of jewelry).
---
Unfortunately, the planner also failed to get a vital bit of info: the security guards are armed! A guard panics and shoots a robber dead. So now EVERYONE knows shit has hit the fan.
---
At this point all involved are now guilty for the murder of their buddy, as they were in the process of a felony in the first place, though questions will most likely be asked on why a security guard has a firearm.
---
The driver and surviving robber are caught and arrested after a short chase. The planner is safe and sound...well that is until his buddies rat him out and they come arrest him for Conspiring to Commit a Felony, Felony Murder, Attempted Felony Burglary, and Felony Evading Arrest. Needless to say they will be going behind bars for a long time.
What happened to the Security Guard? He lost his job, not because he was arrested, but because he broke his job rules and got sacked. That's not the justice system, that's just his employer being an asshole.
[QUOTE=nagachief;47233749]payday 2[/QUOTE]
Were not discussing/arguing over how the system works but why, we've already had that established that in a much simpler and cleaner format.
Stupid article, comes off like
"His life was coming along real well! He was just sitting with his bad crowd friends doing drugs, when he decided he was [I]just[/I] casually going to burgle someone's possessions and invade their property, as you do"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.