7 ms·

If they lacked the foresight to be born wealthy and enroll in an ivy league college, that's their fault. Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets

by bmpafa 9y ago

If they lacked the foresight to be born wealthy and enroll in an ivy league college, that's their fault. Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets forgotten too often. Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone. Obviously substantially different crimes, but the comments were mostly people salivating at this "animal" getting "what he deserved." Anyway, thanks for mentioning this point.

user982 9y ago
> Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone. You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. The involved law and its application are interesting interpretations of the idea of justice. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-year-plea-deal-gets-sentenced-to-65-years-instead-and-laughs.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-...)
- Urbanxassassin 9y ago
  And even if he misread what actually happened, the point was young people get serious consequences quite often. Why should Zuckerberg be viewed any differently? Either change the system to judge younger people especially minors less harsh or be consistent.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.
  - JackCh 9y ago
    Taking cheap-shots at southern states with disreputable histories is easy, but the vast majority of states (46 out of 50, as of 2008) in America have a Felony Murder rule. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine
    - kmm 9y ago
      But tellingly, virtually only in the US. Other common law countries which had it, abolished it for being unconstitutional. In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
      - JackCh 9y ago
        Not that my opinion on the law matters, but I'd say felony murder rules make a lot of sense in many scenarios. If you accidentally fatally knock a man to the ground while deliberately robbing him, that's felony murder even though the killing itself was accidental. After all, the robbery was no accident. Surely killing a man by accident while committing a felony is itself a heinous crime. Calling it manslaughter just doesn't cut it. Not in my book anyway. It only gets weird when you have two or more criminals cooperating with each other. That's when you get scenarios where one of the criminals is lawfully killed (by the police or otherwise) and another is charged with felony murder. I don't have any statistics for it, but I suspect a more common scenario is one of the criminals commits 'traditional' murder and the other criminals are then charged with felony murder for their general participation. Without some sort of felony murder you might be able to get the other participants with some sort of "conspiracy to commit" type law, but maybe not. A more serious criticism of felony murder laws is that it incentivizes killing more witnesses after one victim has been accidentally killed, particularly in states where capital punishment is on the table for felony murder. After all, if a criminal accidentally kills one victim and is now a candidate for execution, there is little incentive left for him to not deliberately murder any witnesses (under the theory that murdering witnesses lowers the probability of capture/conviction.) It's difficult to guess how many multiple-murders started out with an accidental killing that escalated in this manner. But I'd wager this has happened far more often than the scenario where a robber is charged with murder after the police gun down his partner.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by bmpafa 9y ago

user982 9y ago

> Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone. You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. The involved law and its application are interesting interpretations of the idea of justice. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-year-plea-deal-gets-sentenced-to-65-years-instead-and-laughs.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-...)

Urbanxassassin 9y ago
And even if he misread what actually happened, the point was young people get serious consequences quite often. Why should Zuckerberg be viewed any differently? Either change the system to judge younger people especially minors less harsh or be consistent.
sangnoir 9y ago
> The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.
- JackCh 9y ago
  Taking cheap-shots at southern states with disreputable histories is easy, but the vast majority of states (46 out of 50, as of 2008) in America have a Felony Murder rule. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine
  - kmm 9y ago
    But tellingly, virtually only in the US. Other common law countries which had it, abolished it for being unconstitutional. In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
    - JackCh 9y ago
      Not that my opinion on the law matters, but I'd say felony murder rules make a lot of sense in many scenarios. If you accidentally fatally knock a man to the ground while deliberately robbing him, that's felony murder even though the killing itself was accidental. After all, the robbery was no accident. Surely killing a man by accident while committing a felony is itself a heinous crime. Calling it manslaughter just doesn't cut it. Not in my book anyway. It only gets weird when you have two or more criminals cooperating with each other. That's when you get scenarios where one of the criminals is lawfully killed (by the police or otherwise) and another is charged with felony murder. I don't have any statistics for it, but I suspect a more common scenario is one of the criminals commits 'traditional' murder and the other criminals are then charged with felony murder for their general participation. Without some sort of felony murder you might be able to get the other participants with some sort of "conspiracy to commit" type law, but maybe not. A more serious criticism of felony murder laws is that it incentivizes killing more witnesses after one victim has been accidentally killed, particularly in states where capital punishment is on the table for felony murder. After all, if a criminal accidentally kills one victim and is now a candidate for execution, there is little incentive left for him to not deliberately murder any witnesses (under the theory that murdering witnesses lowers the probability of capture/conviction.) It's difficult to guess how many multiple-murders started out with an accidental killing that escalated in this manner. But I'd wager this has happened far more often than the scenario where a robber is charged with murder after the police gun down his partner.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]