| 0 |
Subject: Felony Murder Rule
Posted by: walk
- [2530286] Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 07:34
Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers
I read this article this a.m. with my coffee and can't get it out of my head. I'd like to get the opinions of those here. This rule varies by state, with one of the more severe forms of it in Florida, where this particular case resides. IMO, I am against it, but clearly there are many for it. It seems, if I have this correct, that the rule is derived from English law, but England has since abolished it.
By logical extension (an absurd one at that), the company that manufactured the vehicle in this case could also be subject to life in prison without parole ("no car, no murder" is what some said). I think the point that personal accountability for deeds done matter more when it comes to felony murders, but am open to hearing what others have to say. |
| 1 | Khahan
ID: 561119313
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 14:50
|
The key seems to be that he loaned the car with knowledge that it would be used in a crime. Hence he is an accomplice. Hence he took part. My question is, why is this only applied to murder?
He loaned the vehicle knowing it would be used to commit a robbery. If the murder had not occurred, would he still be legally criminal in his actions? He should be. In theory, I feel the rule is perfectly fine. However, with any law, a broad application w/out any consideration for any circumstances (and I'm one of the first to say that true circumstances are few and far between) does not allow for justice.
|
| 2 | Doug
ID: 441251914
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 18:54
|
Yeah... it's a little bit of an odd situation... and this is an admittedly lay-man perspective, but it seems clearly that one should only be held accountable for the crimes one is a knowing accomplice to... in this case burglary (for the "loaner" of the car).
However, it appears that the law has been modified here for burglaries, rapes, and robberies... basically saying that if you knew such a crime was to be committed, you knew it was possible that a murder would be committed as well... so you're also responsible for that. I don't know about this... I understand the intent/idea, but it seems a bit of stretch.
At worst it seems there might be some additional penalty, but to hold them "as liable as the actual killer" seems to be going too far. It's subjective but ultimately I feel people should be responsible for their own actions... not other people's actions... interesting that I can't seem to form a solid opinion for or against this particular law, lol.
Do any of our legal people here know... suppose he'd actually been there and in the course of the robbery had done something to try and prevent the murder from happening (such as pulling his friend off the girl being beaten)... would he likely still have been tried for a murder that he actively tried to prevent? If not, it seems odd by staying home and loaning a car he's potentially more liable than he might be when actively participating in the robbery.
|
| 3 | walk
ID: 2530286
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 19:54
|
Doug, I think it's more like: "If you knew such a crime was to be committed [burglary], you knew it was possible that a muder COULD (as opposed to "would") be committed. I feel as you say, that this seems like a bit of a stretch...going too far. It's not like this law is not contentious between the states either. Many states do not have this law and some countries (England, India) have gotten rid of it, too.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|