Did you know that one could be convicted of murder even if he did not kill anyone? This can occur under the law of felony murder. Your probably thinking how does that make any sense; you need to kill someone to be ch
arged for that murder. A felony murder makes any participant in a felony, criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. For example, if two thieves are robbing a bank, even without guns, which is a felony, and a police officer walks in trying to stop the robbery, shoots and kills one of the thieves. Then, the thief that is alive can be charged with murder of the killing of his
friend even though he did not pull the trigger. You may ask how is this fair, and in fact America is one of the few countries that has the felony murder rule. On one hand, it is clear that if they have not been involved in this crime, the killing would have not occurred. Although, on the other hand, is it fair to punish someone for doing something that they did not intend to do?
The idea that someone is killed based off of your actions, is a somewhat conflicting idea. If the two thieves are robbing the store, and it just so happens that one is shot and dies, what is the backup argument? What will protect that person from being charged for that murder? It leaves the criminal in a state of helplessness, and really makes criminals think twice before they perform an illegal act. That is the positive aspect of the rule.
We should also look at this situation from another negative perspective. As we all know, the sentence for a premeditated murder is more punitive than an accidental murder. If the thieves entered to rob the bank and expect one of them to not come out alive; this would be a different story. The idea that seems strange to me is, what if the thieves were a mother and a son? And if the son is shot by a police officer, the mother is blamed? It also could be that the police officer made a bad decision.
We also forget an important aspect; the police officer killed the thief. The police officer is the killer and he is allowed to blame it on someone else. I can understand if the police shoots someone for his self defense and his control of the situation, but is it worth it to blame it on someone else. The police officer has the free will to choose whether or not he will shoot this thief and therefore is able to determine the sentencing of the other thief.
4 comments:
Hi Ariel!
I didn't know about felony murder. It does seem odd that someone could be charged for murder without actually killing the person. With the example you gave, I agree that the criminal should not have been robbing the bank in the first place, but robbing a bank and killing someone are two separate crimes.
Ariel,
I think you may have made a mistake, but do correct me if I'm wrong. You said that if the police officer walks in a two bank robbers, and the police shoots one, then the other robber gets the charge of murder of the first robber?! That's weird, or maybe it's just me. I thought the law was that since the dead robber can't pay money/go to jail, then then other robber, who didn't do anything but was part of pulling out the crime serves the time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than that, an excellent blog.
Good job.
dear legal tissues:
i really like your blog. what you talked about i had never really thought of before. the point that one guy could die and the alive guy could be accused even if he did not pull the trigger is very interesting. i really do not know how i feel.
fondly,
foxxy allie
First off nice comic! I guess I always have kind of known about felony murder but reading your blog really made a foggy topic seem quite clear. Thanks.
Post a Comment