I am writing this to solicit opinions from the various and sundry out there in the proverbial peanut gallery. We are currently studying homicide in Criminal Law, and I have been confronted with a quandry, it regards the crime of Felony Murder.
I am sure all of you know (perhaps from watching Law & Order) that homicide is the killing of another. There are many different kinds of homicide, depending on the degree of culpability of the killer, and the most obvious degree imposed is the difference between Murder and Manslaughter. Murder requires intent, at varying degrees, and Manslaughter does not. That there are differing degrees of intent that one can have, we also have different degrees of murder, IE 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree murder. The higher the degree, the greater the intent required. This is all relatively self evident (and admittedly simplified). the reasons for the distinctions are obvious - it goes to punishment (we punish more severe crimes more severely).
There is one special exception to Murder: Felony murder is when the felon kills someone in the course of committing another, unrelated felony. That means that if you're robbing a bank, your intent is only to rob the bank. but if you kill someone (accidentally, inadvertently, watever) during the commission of the felony, you are guilty of felony murder. The affect of this is to remove the requirement for specific intent (in other words, the commission of the underlying felony, eg robbing the bank, replaces the requirement to otherwise prove intent to kill).
Some states call felony murder "1st degree murder". others call it "2nd degree murder". 3 states have abolished the rule altogether, and a few others have greatly limited it. I'd be happy to give a more detailed history later if you want, but for now, I want to know what you think of the general rule.
a good illustration of this is the following (this is an actual case, much abbreviated of course):
a man commits a burglary. while fleeing from the scene, he causes a car accident killing the driver of the other car. he's convicted of felony murder.
so tell me, is this rule just? is it fair? remember, the guy above could still be convicted of a lesser homicide crime, and certainly of burglary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm not sure on this.. it seems to attempt to tie the crime of burglary to his driving wrecklessly and killing the other driver.
While logically that makes sense to me, it also seems somewhat of a stretch.
I can see how the two crimes are related in that he was fleeing the scene of the crime.. but i can also see how they are two completly unrelated incidents as well.
So.. I'm torn..let's leave this for the lawyers to sort out ;)
remember, he should be punished for the burglary. and he should be punished for killing the woman in the car accident. neither is the question.
the question is, should he be punished GREATER for the killing BECAUSE of the burglary?
"should he be punished GREATER for the killing BECAUSE of the burglary?"
Makes me look for other examples... to try and work it out.
I was trying to think of something on a macro scale that would result in many innocent deaths, but i think i went that way just to make it easier to justify the greater punishment. So i put the breaks on that line of thinking.
So how bout this, I ask myself :D. What if someone commits the crime of DWI and accidentally kills someone in the process. In that case i would agree that they should be punished greater for their crime than just an accidental death.
CRAP! I just typed that whole thing out and relized it's apples and oranges. DWI IS the crime. Drinking and sitting on ur duff isn't a crime .. bugger. Back to the drawing board. LOL!
Ok screw the examples.. here's what i'm thinking.
Yes it should be greater as it is tied to the origial crime. Though not sure how you'd prove that... other than to show evidence that he was driving wrecklessly as a direct result of his fleeing the scene of the crime. Probably have the burden to show that he was ordinarily a decent driver w/ no marks on his driving record etc.
This ones fun to tinker with but makes my non-lawyerly mind flash 'TILT' Heh.
Keep forgetting to put my name.. tis the Puncture man :D
i figured it was you :)
i'll post my thoughts on the law soon enough.
DUI is a unique example by the way, but i like your thinking.
Really amazing! Useful information. All the best.
»
It's even worse than that. There was a case where two burglars broke into a cocaine dealer's apartment. The burglars fled, the cocaine dealer got into his vehicle and struck down one of the burglars. The other burglar was sentenced to life for "felony murder"! Now, the same kind of farce is happening in Okahoma with the executioner pharmacist, who calmly executed a wounded kid who was foolish enough to try to rob the place with an unloaded gun. The two robbers had no means to kill the pharmacist or anyone else but the pharmacist decided to go psycho and execute his associate, they are charging the 14-year old who waved the unloaded gun with "felony murder". Preposterous, and a law that suggests barbarism. Civilised jurisdictions have abolished this farce of a law.
It's even worse than that. There was a case where two burglars broke into a cocaine dealer's apartment. The burglars fled, the cocaine dealer got into his vehicle and struck down one of the burglars. The other burglar was sentenced to life for "felony murder"! Now, the same kind of farce is happening in Okahoma with the executioner pharmacist, who calmly executed a wounded kid who was foolish enough to try to rob the place with an unloaded gun. The two robbers had no means to kill the pharmacist or anyone else but the pharmacist decided to go psycho and execute his associate, they are charging the 14-year old who waved the unloaded gun with "felony murder". Preposterous, and a law that suggests barbarism. Civilised jurisdictions have abolished this farce of a law.
Post a Comment