Felony Murder: Not sure on this one

[oscarlong]

You guys are missing the point. It's not manslaughter they were charged with, it's murder.

The fact is the kid who died is responsible for his death. He did something illegal that lead to his death. He made a bad choice, he died. The other kids didn't drag him in there against his will, nor did they make the homeowner fire his weapon. The only person legally responsible for his death is the dead kid.

[watcher1]

You guys are missing the point. It's not manslaughter they were charged with, it's murder.

The fact is the kid who died is responsible for his death. He did something illegal that lead to his death. He made a bad choice, he died. The other kids didn't drag him in there against his will, nor did they make the homeowner fire his weapon. The only person legally responsible for his death is the dead kid.

I would think all of them would be responsible for the one death.  I am pretty sure they all knew the consequences of their actions.  Pretty much also what the law states.

[phtlc]

I would agree that the sentence is extreme given the circumstances, however just a few points;

I won't go into my thoughts on the value of life vs. the value of possessions, since it's something I've hashed out before.

Are you sure the home owner was motivated by defense of property when he opened fire? If I were awakened to find multiple people had broken into my house while I was still in it I would likely react like a cornered animal; so his motive quite likely was self defence made in a panicked state.

I will say that trying minors as adults defeats the purpose of the distinction, in my mind, particularly for a first offender.

Yes and no. I agree with young offender laws in most cases, but crimes which involve violence or where a person could reasonably foresee that violence could occur should allow for the courts to consider trying one as an adult if they are close enough to that age. Alternately they could still try the person as a minor, but allow for heavier sentences even though dealing with a minor.

Also, that all criminals involved in a crime would be responsible for each other's actions rather than each responsible for their own only is ridiculous.

Not really. I suspect the same principle applies when a person with a few drinks in them gets behind the wheel and kills someone. The idea is that the person is engaging in a behaviour that they ought reasonably to know can spiral out of control. Certain crimes like robbery, B&E...etc have the possibility of spiraling out of control at the victims expense regardless of the intentions of the mildest perpetrator. Nobody promises the victim of a crime proportional consequences, so I think the idea is to transfer some of the risk to the perpetrators. The intent is to start sending a strong message to certain individuals that their actions could spiral out of control with dire consequences.

Consider this. Many a muggings result in one of the muggers violently beating the victim, even if the other muggers just wanted the wallet. If we can hold all parties responsible, the hope is that the mildest muggers may look at the craziest and say "Hey Crazy is unpredictable and I don't want to risk being dragged down with him" and refuse to go along. Crazy on the other hand might be too much of a coward to do it without backup and perhaps may do something else with his evening.

Will that always work? Probably not, but it should work in some cases.

Frankly even accounting for that, the law is ludicrous. It sounds a product of a society that favours vengeance over rehabilitation, to me.

Is it vengeance for vengeance sake or deterrence? I can't speak for hard-core criminals, but up here in Canada impaired driving started to drop when they started taking it more seriously. Now granted it is hard to isolate the cause of this drop since there was a combination of tougher sentences and awareness campaigns, but to date I hear more people saying "I don't want to lose my licence" than I hear people saying "I don't want to hurt anybody" which indicates to me at least that the possibility of tougher sentences can act as a deterrent.


I would agree that the 55 years seems a wee bit excessive, but I can't disagree with the principle behind the felony murder laws.

[Dgan]

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."

"Victims" was likely the most descriptive word in context. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a better word for someone who has been shot dead when they were the ones in the wrong.
[/quote]
Burglars, home invaders, etc. would be more applicable than victims. The sentence itself was designed to evoke a response to their way of thinking.  When you are in the wrong, especially when you know you are in the wrong, you are hardly a 'victim' of your actions.

[oscarlong]

Again, in no state has this law applied to others involved in the crime where they did not pull the trigger or in some way we're directly involved in the murder.  It has never before been applied in this manner, as what you are talking about is considered manslaughter. In your example pthlc, it would not be the drunk driver who is charged. For your example to apply here, it would be charging the passenger in the back seat for the drunk drivers actions. According to you, they are technically culpable since they were there too. They did not force that kid to do the crime, they did not shoot him.

And I definitely disagree with your assessment of the necessity of trying them in adult court here due to the possibility of violence. Being tried in adult court is reserved for heinous crimes that involve decisions directly by the perpetrators acting in such a way that youth rehabilitation does not seem applicable. These are dumb kids who had no record, in no way attempted anything violent or aggressive (remember they knocked loudly expressly to avoid any confrontation) and an accidental death occurred. Hardly a useful or good application of the law or the jumping them up to adult court.

And as for the idea that if you commit any crime then whatever crazy thing happens is only their responsibility, that's just dangerous. So if some kid shoplifting a t-shirt, can I shoot him? Can I bash his head in a little? What about if the tag the storefront? Where does that end exactly?

[phtlc]

Burglars, home invaders, etc. would be more applicable than victims. The sentence itself was designed to evoke a response to their way of thinking.  When you are in the wrong, especially when you know you are in the wrong, you are hardly a 'victim' of your actions.

You missed my point. The word victim was the only adequate word to differentiate between the people with bullet holes in them and those without, in context. You're overly fixated on this one word (and its singular use within the article) when I believe its use was more to do with creating a coherent English sentence than anything else.

Ok, this is maybe just a disagreement over terminology and I would prefer not to get into semantics, so if I misinterpreted your post then I stand corrected.

[phtlc]

Are you sure the home owner was motivated by defense of property when he opened fire? If I were awakened to find multiple people had broken into my house while I was still in it I would likely react like a cornered animal; so his motive quite likely was self defence made in a panicked state.

I was referring more to what the law allows. I don't profess to know what the man was thinking when he shot those boys but it's a bit twisted to me that what he knew, or was thinking or feeling is largely inconsequential, from a legal perspective. That is a larger debate and does not seem to be something anyone has much interest in in this thread, regardless.
 

But how can the law prove one way or another what he was thinking? I think the point of the law in that case is to say we won't punish based on speculation, so unless the guy stands in a courtroom and claims to have felt no fear but rather shot in anger, a homeowner should be presumed to have acted in fear.

Yes and no. I agree with young offender laws in most cases, but crimes which involve violence or where a person could reasonably foresee that violence could occur should allow for the courts to consider trying one as an adult if they are close enough to that age. Alternately they could still try the person as a minor, but allow for heavier sentences even though dealing with a minor.

I disagree. They are fully responsible for their actions, or they are not. Picking and choosing when a person is considered a minor based on the severity of the crime is pointless. If sentencing for minors needs revision then it makes far more sense to revise it than to create such blatant inconsistencies.
 

OK, but that is why I said that alternately they can be tried as a minor while accepting that certain crimes should still carry heavy sentences.

Not really. I suspect the same principle applies when a person with a few drinks in them gets behind the wheel and kills someone. The idea is that the person is engaging in a behaviour that they ought reasonably to know can spiral out of control. Certain crimes like robbery, B&E...etc have the possibility of spiraling out of control at the victims expense regardless of the intentions of the mildest perpetrator. Nobody promises the victim of a crime proportional consequences, so I think the idea is to transfer some of the risk to the perpetrators. The intent is to start sending a strong message to certain individuals that their actions could spiral out of control with dire consequences.

Consider this. Many a muggings result in one of the muggers violently beating the victim, even if the other muggers just wanted the wallet. If we can hold all parties responsible, the hope is that the mildest muggers may look at the craziest and say "Hey Crazy is unpredictable and I don't want to risk being dragged down with him" and refuse to go along. Crazy on the other hand might be too much of a coward to do it without backup and perhaps may do something else with his evening.

Will that always work? Probably not, but it should work in some cases.

It's more like the passenger of a drunk driver who crashed and died being tried for murder.

Might as well start trying everyone who is guilty of B&E for murder. There is no justice in convicting someone of a crime they did not commit.
 

I can't agree. Nobody is charging the deceased with felony murder. They are charging the ones who lived. Furthermore, my argument is not tantamount to saying we should charge everyone who commits B&E with murder, any more than I would suggest that anyone who blows over .08 at a roadside stop should be charged with vehicular manslaughter. If no harm is done in either case, stick to the lower charge, but if someone dies in either case then nail them with that. The idea is that when you do either, you are rolling the dice with someone else's life, and the uncertainty of consequence should transfer to you.

Is it vengeance for vengeance sake or deterrence? I can't speak for hard-core criminals, but up here in Canada impaired driving started to drop when they started taking it more seriously. Now granted it is hard to isolate the cause of this drop since there was a combination of tougher sentences and awareness campaigns, but to date I hear more people saying "I don't want to lose my licence" than I hear people saying "I don't want to hurt anybody" which indicates to me at least that the possibility of tougher sentences can act as a deterrent.

I would agree that the 55 years seems a wee bit excessive, but I can't disagree with the principle behind the felony murder laws.

If a dead body and whatever length of time incarcerated for B&E is not a sufficient deterrent then what good will a murder conviction do? If burglars were overly concerned with the consequences of their actions, they would be in a different line of work.

I see no value as a deterrent, no value towards rehabilitation and no value to society in general in the ruling.

People rarely get prison time for B&E ( at least up here in Canada) and if they do (after multiple convictions) it is a very short sentence in a minimum security. Sometimes people need to see someone they know learn the hard way before they smarten up and say "shit, that could have been me".

I'll disagree with you on the deterrent factor, yet in this case I'll agree that a focus on rehabilitation in the sentence might have been in order as he was a first time offender and a minor. I don't adhere rigidly to either the heavy punishment approach or the rehabilitation approach, but rather see merit in both depending on the circumstances.

I do agree with holding all criminal parties responsible in this case, but at the same time find myself baffled that a minor could get such a long sentence for murder when so many murderers get much shorter sentences. A message needs to be sent, and punishment is in order, but I also believe that the sentence is needlessly destroying a life.

[phtlc]

I can't agree. Nobody is charging the deceased with felony murder. They are charging the ones who lived. Furthermore, my argument is not tantamount to saying we should charge everyone who commits B&E with murder, any more than I would suggest that anyone who blows over .08 at a roadside stop should be charged with vehicular manslaughter. If no harm is done in either case, stick to the lower charge, but if someone dies in either case then nail them with that. The idea is that when you do either, you are rolling the dice with someone else's life, and the uncertainty of consequence should transfer to you.

In the short analogy I used, the driver died, the pasenger lived and was charged with murder of the driver.

If the charge is for taking the risk, then what is the difference between a crime which happens to result in a death and a crime that happens to not?

The same reason drunk drivers who kill someone get a tougher sentence than those who merely blow over at a roadside stop?

Sometimes people need to see someone they know learn the hard way before they smarten up and say "shit, that could have been me".

Like, say, if they get shot and killed, for instance?

No, if they go commit a crime which spirals out of control and they find themselves facing a tough prison sentence. I thought I was clear on that.

[phtlc]

The same reason drunk drivers who kill someone get a tougher sentence than those who merely blow over at a roadside stop?

So are you saying burglars should be tried for murder only if they commit a murder or if they run the risk of a murder occurring? It is really not clear as the drunk driver comparisons you are making are apples to oranges comparisons.
 

I'm saying that they should be charged with murder or manslaughter if a fatality occurs during the burglary. It seems pretty comparable to the drunk driver comparison. A person ought reasonably to know that engaging in certain illegal acts runs a certain risk that a person could end up dead as a result, and if that happens, then the penalty should reflect that someone died as a result of their actions.

No, if they go commit a crime which spirals out of control and they find themselves facing a tough prison sentence. I thought I was clear on that.

I was asking. Personally, I consider the threat of death a greater deterrent than the threat of a murder charge. I don't believe anyone who ignores the threat of death will be any greater deterred by the possibility of facing a murder charge if one of their fellow burglars is killed and they are lucky enough to survive.

Some people tend not to think about any consequences, but some can be deterred by seeing the consequences born by others.

[phtlc]

I'm saying that they should be charged with murder or manslaughter if a fatality occurs during the burglary. It seems pretty comparable to the drunk driver comparison. A person ought reasonably to know that engaging in certain illegal acts runs a certain risk that a person could end up dead as a result, and if that happens, then the penalty should reflect that someone died as a result of their actions.

Sorry, but that is nonsense, in the truest meaning of the word. If a drunk driver knocks down and kills someone, they are the direct cause of that person's death. Not so for the boys and young men in the subject of this thread. They neither directly caused the death of their friend nor forced him to break the law that lead to his death. He paid for his mistake in the most profound way and the rest are being made to pay for his mistake as well as their own. It simply does not make any logical sense.

By participating in the B&E they are facilitating the dangerous situation. It makes plenty of sense when you think that their actions could result in the death of an innocent.

I'm saying that they should be charged with murder or manslaughter if a fatality occurs during the burglary. It seems pretty comparable to the drunk driver comparison. A person ought reasonably to know that engaging in certain illegal acts runs a certain risk that a person could end up dead as a result, and if that happens, then the penalty should reflect that someone died as a result of their actions.

I do not understand what you mean. Death is a consequence, and a more permanent one than a murder charge. Further, the threat of death and the threat of a murder charge must go hand in hand as in most cases, and certainly in this case, each of the burglars risked being shot equally. How is a murder charge for a murder that did not occur in any way a better deterrent than the threat of death?

I wouldn't say a better deterrent. It simply drives the point home, that even if you do not die, you may still face serious penalties

[phtlc]

By participating in the B&E they are facilitating the dangerous situation. It makes plenty of sense when you think that their actions could result in the death of an innocent.

Yes. Could being the key word. It does not make sense.

I wouldn't say a better deterrent. It simply drives the point home, that even if you do not die, you may still face serious penalties

They already would face charges for the crimes they have actually committed. I do not agree with charging, never mind convicting, people with crimes they have not committed.

I think we've hit that wall where we just have to disagree. I feel I have articulated my reasoning well, but if I haven't then I don't know how many other ways I can explain it.

[phtlc]

In your example pthlc, it would not be the drunk driver who is charged. For your example to apply here, it would be charging the passenger in the back seat for the drunk drivers actions. According to you, they are technically culpable since they were there too. They did not force that kid to do the crime, they did not shoot him.

But for felony murder to apply, you have to be committing a crime when the death happens. To the best of my knowledge, it is not a crime to be a passenger in a car where the driver is impaired (I could be wrong on that), but the last time I checked, B&E is a no no.

[phtlc]

And as for the idea that if you commit any crime then whatever crazy thing happens is only their responsibility, that's just dangerous. So if some kid shoplifting a t-shirt, can I shoot him? Can I bash his head in a little? What about if the tag the storefront? Where does that end exactly?

I have suggested nothing even remotely like that. You are deliberately misrepresenting my argument.

[Tony V.]

In this Case, Felony Murder attaches because the death occurred during the commission of another Felony. The commission of the Felony caused the death of the other young man. Because the Homeowner was in Reasonable fear of his life, he shot at the intruders, killing one.

The Greater Charge attaches because  the way the Statutes are written in Ohio, the Felony being committed caused the other death.....


Tony V.                       

[Dgan]

Bingo, Tony!

And the reason you won't see Felony Murder attached to a DUI-involved death is simple: The powers that be that draft the laws insist on keeping DUI a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Their reasons being likely more selfish in that a very large % of congress has at least one DUI on their record (at least in '10 when they did a nice report on the average backgrounds of House and Senate people). If they have a felony they can't serve in certain types of public office, including (ta da!) Congress.  If they legislated to make DUI a felony they would be legislating themselves out of a job. Thats like asking them to draft laws to make their pay and benefits match the military... Not going to happen.

There are some circumstances a DUI can be raised to felony but it doesn't happen often and even when it does it gets plead down to a misdemeanor anyhow.  Have you ever noticed how many articles you see where they are surprised scumbag has actually gotten wasted, driven the wrong way on the interstate and killed that nice innocent family? "How could this happen, he only had 12 DUI's!" they ask themselves. The worst I have seen is 24 DUI convictions... Really? "But we took away his license..." Uhmm.. Really?