• Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail
    87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archival;47233802]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.[/QUOTE] Didn't realize there was several more posts after I started writing, it's more late than redundant. Also I used an example that would make the most sense, just because it's a similar scenario to Payday 2 doesn't make it any less valid.
[QUOTE=nagachief;47233874]Didn't realize there was several more posts after I started writing, it's more late than redundant. Also I used an example that would make the most sense, just because it's a similar scenario to Payday 2 doesn't make it any less valid.[/QUOTE] That was just so I didnt quote the whole thing, your examples just a bit clunky compared to the others is all. (why do we even need to know about the guard getting fired etc)
[QUOTE=archival;47233921]That was just so I didnt quote the whole thing, your examples just a bit clunky compared to the others is all. (why do we even need to know about the guard getting fired etc)[/QUOTE] Bad habit of injecting humor into things, and I do have an issue with over complicating things in an effort do everything right out of fear.
I don't think you'd get 55 years even for straight up murder here in Denmark.
[quote]Of those, 11 states unambiguously allow for individuals who commit a felony that ends in a death to be charged with murder even when they were the victims, rather than the agents, of the killing.[/quote] Well there's your problem. [editline]1st March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Snowmew;47233714]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] Hmm, the shooter should be held responsible even in self defense, but since it was self defense you shouldn't be able to get charged. Lets say a cop gets into a fight with a robber, and the cop is ridiculously stupid. The robber manages to hit the cop with a few rocks and charges at him with a knife, the cop manages to grab a rifle with a high capacity mag and kills 12 bystanders while wounding the robber. Should the robber get the death penalty or life in prison for mass murder? No, the cops shitty aim was to blame. On top of that I think this system might be easily abused, any situation where you could get someone else charged for murder when you shot the person could be abused.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47235114]Well there's your problem. [editline]1st March 2015[/editline] Hmm, the shooter should be held responsible even in self defense, but since it was self defense you shouldn't be able to get charged. Lets say a cop gets into a fight with a robber, and the cop is ridiculously stupid. The robber manages to hit the cop with a few rocks and charges at him with a knife, the cop manages to grab a rifle with a high capacity mag and kills 12 bystanders while wounding the robber. Should the robber get the death penalty or life in prison for mass murder? No, the cops shitty aim was to blame. On top of that I think this system might be easily abused, any situation where you could get someone else charged for murder when you shot the person could be abused.[/QUOTE] I think using a cop is a poor example simply because police should be held to a higher standard as far as how they deal with such situations. None the less, in such a case I would say both parties are guilty; the robber because had they not been committing a crime those people would have still been alive, and the cop because of his terrible aim and/or decision making skills. As such, they should both be charged. Mind, I think for the particular case the article is about the charge and sentence is stupid, but only because the person who was killed was the one committing a crime, not the victim or a bystander. Also, you mention abuse, and sure it's possible, but first the person has to be committing a crime which creates a situation where it becomes reasonable to use lethal force, then in this window one could in theory "accidentally" kill someone else and have the other person charged. That isn't easy though; the person you're trying to get charged has to put you into a situation where it's reasonable to use lethal force, and why would anyone do that willingly?
I'm glad that they're placing such a highly dangerous threat to society in prison longer than any usual murderer would be. Brilliant law indeed.
Let's teach that kid not to steal by practically ending his life! That'll keep him from stealing ever again, especially since he's responsible for the other person's decision as a human being to go through with such an act in the first place.
I'm honestly not sure how this works. This would only be just if the home owner is also charged with murder, and even then it's a stretch. But you can't be an accomplice to something that isn't a crime (i.e. shooting someone robbing your house in this case). He should only be charged with breaking and entering or something to that effect. He never had any sort of intention of getting anyone killed, so he can't be an accomplice to a killing. [editline]1st March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47234073]I don't think you'd get 55 years even for straight up murder here in Denmark.[/QUOTE] Most European countries cap it off at 30 years or lifelong. Anything more than 30 is lifelong anyway, and less than 30 can still be salvaged by society with parole and good behavior and so on.
The sentence would make sense if Layman forced Johnson to commit the robbery. Which he didn't, they both did it out of their own free will. And now Layman has to do 2 lifetimes for it.
Seems there is a lot of misinformation around this case (thx media). They were armed and committed a home invasion. But it seems the media simply took the side of the suspects (because Sensationalism).
So, had the homeowner not get involved in anyway, and the teens were caught later on and charged with theft/burglary/whatever, the teens would be looking at a much short sentence? That seems ridiculous. As in, had the owner not got involved, no one would have got hurt and the teens would have gotten a lesser sentence. I'm not debating whether or not the guy should have shot them, it just seems like extremely flawed justice that because the victim of the crime acted well within his rights, it created a worse situation for the perpetrators when they recieved justice from the court.
[QUOTE=EditOutJ;47236635]So, had the homeowner not get involved in anyway, and the teens were caught later on and charged with theft/burglary/whatever, the teens would be looking at a much short sentence? That seems ridiculous. As in, had the owner not got involved, no one would have got hurt and the teens would have gotten a lesser sentence. I'm not debating whether or not the guy should have shot them, it just seems like extremely flawed justice that because the victim of the crime acted well within his rights, it created a worse situation for the perpetrators when they recieved justice from the court.[/QUOTE] Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
I thought most felony-murder laws required violence to be a key element of the offence. Entering a house without any weapons wouldn't constitute statutory murder (i.e. felony murder) in my jurisdiction.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;47236669]I thought most felony-murder laws required violence to be a key element of the offence. Entering a house without any weapons wouldn't constitute statutory murder (i.e. felony murder) in my jurisdiction.[/QUOTE] Felony murder requires a felony to be committed. entering (unlawfully) an occupied dwelling with intent to commit a crime is a felony.
Well he won't do it again, will he? I'd say this is a smart move on the court's behalf.
Someone was killed. Someone must take the fall for the killing. The victim of the crime, if defending himself, will not be that person. The other surviving criminals, if any, therefore are guilty of that killing. Makes sense to me. If you want to argue a young offender shouldn't be tried as an adult, or get such a long sentence, those are separate questions.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47237951]Someone was killed.[b] Someone must take the fall for the killing[/b]. The victim of the crime, if defending himself, will not be that person. The other surviving criminals, if any, therefore are guilty of that killing. Makes sense to me. If you want to argue a young offender shouldn't be tried as an adult, or get such a long sentence, those are separate questions.[/QUOTE] Why does it have to be like that? I mean, I totally understand why the victim of the robbery wouldn't get punished since he was defending himself, but it really doesn't seem to me that the other guy who got the sentence is any more of a direct cause of his friend's death than the owner.
[QUOTE=Skerion;47238682]Why does it have to be like that? I mean, I totally understand why the victim of the robbery wouldn't get punished since he was defending himself, but it really doesn't seem to me that the other guy who got the sentence is any more of a direct cause of his friend's death than the owner.[/QUOTE] If they weren't committing a felony then his friend would be alive.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47237951]Someone was killed. Someone must take the fall for the killing. The victim of the crime, if defending himself, will not be that person. The other surviving criminals, if any, therefore are guilty of that killing. [/QUOTE] What kind of logic is that? Somebody has to take the fall regardless of the circumstances of the death? What if it was just the one burglar who had gotten himself shot without anybody else there? Who "must take the fall" for that killing? Basically, if the main guy coerced another person to take part in the burglary, and there's reasonable evidence to suggest that they wouldn't have taken part if they hadn't been coerced into doing so, that's manslaughter. Otherwise, the only person responsible for the person's death is that person them-self.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47238706]If they weren't committing a felony then his friend would be alive.[/QUOTE] Maybe, but I'm not talking about indirect causes. I'm talking about direct causes. Why should that other guy get charged for murder when technically it was the owner who was responsible for his friend's death? I have no problem with not charging the owner for murder since it was in self-defense, but I find it retarded that someone else has to be the scapegoat just because the law says that at least one person who just so happens to be commiting a crime needs to have 100% of the blame for someone's death.
[QUOTE=Skerion;47238901]Maybe, but I'm not talking about indirect causes. I'm talking about direct causes. Why should that other guy get charged for murder when technically it was the owner who was responsible for his friend's death? I have no problem with not charging the owner for murder since it was in self-defense, but I find it retarded that someone else has to be the scapegoat just because the law says that at least one person who just so happens to be commiting a crime needs to have 100% of the blame for someone's death.[/QUOTE] They went into the victim's home, armed, with the intent of committing a felony. Anyone with common sense can see that it could result in serious injury or death. Thus the criminals who put others at risk have to answer for the results of their crime. Felony murder isn't new, its been around for a long time.
No way he should be charged for murder, that's pretty silly. Try and steal shit though, expect to get wrekt. I guess felony murder is to try and curb gang activity, would his mate still have tried to break in and steal shit without him? probably not.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;47238797]What kind of logic is that? Somebody has to take the fall regardless of the circumstances of the death? What if it was just the one burglar who had gotten himself shot without anybody else there? Who "must take the fall" for that killing? Basically, if the main guy coerced another person to take part in the burglary, and there's reasonable evidence to suggest that they wouldn't have taken part if they hadn't been coerced into doing so, that's manslaughter. Otherwise, the only person responsible for the person's death is that person them-self.[/QUOTE] The death wasn't the result of random circumstances, it happened as the result of the commision of a felony crime, hence the term 'felony murder'. If me and my partner walk into a bank to rob it, then my partner shoots someone for no reason, do I get to say "I was just here to rob the place, don't blame me"? Haha, no. That makes no sense. In that scenario I choose to engage in a crime that might result in someone being killed, and someone was killed. That's where my share of the responsibility comes from.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47240031]The death wasn't the result of random circumstances, it happened as the result of the commision of a felony crime, hence the term 'felony murder'. If me and my partner walk into a bank to rob it, then my partner shoots someone for no reason, do I get to say "I was just here to rob the place, don't blame me"? Haha, no. That makes no sense. In that scenario I choose to engage in a crime that might result in someone being killed, and someone was killed. That's where my share of the responsibility comes from.[/QUOTE] But that isn't the case here; the case here is you and your partner walk into a bank to rob it and your partner gets killed by a cop or whatever and you're charged for it. Your case is clean cut to just about everyone I think; the reason this situation in particular is causing some debate is that the "victim" was one of the perpetrators who through their own decisions got themselves killed--provided they weren't coerced into participating. That said, I can see some of the logic in trying to counteract peer pressure or whatnot by "upping the stakes"; though if you're willing to risk breaking into someone's house in a state where guns are common and castle doctrine is active, I don't think the potential for a murder charge is going to have much impact.
It's not about controlling someone's behavior. It's more about just letting people know "If you do this, whatever happens as a result is going to be blamed on EVERYONE involved, not just the guy who did it." Whether or not that helps someone resist peer pressure is not important. It's just important that we have a legal way to hold people accountable for the results. Keep in mind this involves someone dying. We aren't talking about theft or assault, we are talking about the needless loss of a human life. That's a big deal and that's why it has to be resolved, if it happened during a crime someone must be sentenced for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.