3 ms·

In this case, Mr Fennell watched a man get attacked, did nothing to help the man and even actively participated in the attack, and when the man died, Mr. Fennel

In this case, Mr Fennell watched a man get attacked, did nothing to help the man and even actively participated in the attack, and when the man died, Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. I don't think it's a stretch, ethically or legally, to assign him significant blame for the killing, especially since his refusal to testify deprived his victims of any further justice. That doesn't mean I agree with the life sentence (I absolutely do not), but twenty-five years doesn't seem wildly disproportionate to me.

xenophonf 7y ago
Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  > are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Who gives a shit what his motivation was? The legal system sure doesn't. The effect of his refusal to testify was that the killer could not be brought to justice. His participation in the attack and his refusal to cooperate after the man's death makes him morally and legally culpable in that death. This is not controversial in any modern legal jurisdiction that I'm aware of. > Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent. You appear to be confusing this issue with our Fifth Amendment indemnity against self-incrimination. Mr. Fennell was not examined as a witness, but rather as a defendant. If you refuse to testify against an accomplice, and you expect to be somehow protected from a charge of accessory-after-the-fact, you're in for a rude surprise.

xenophonf 7y ago

Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent.

nate_meurer 7y ago
> are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Who gives a shit what his motivation was? The legal system sure doesn't. The effect of his refusal to testify was that the killer could not be brought to justice. His participation in the attack and his refusal to cooperate after the man's death makes him morally and legally culpable in that death. This is not controversial in any modern legal jurisdiction that I'm aware of. > Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent. You appear to be confusing this issue with our Fifth Amendment indemnity against self-incrimination. Mr. Fennell was not examined as a witness, but rather as a defendant. If you refuse to testify against an accomplice, and you expect to be somehow protected from a charge of accessory-after-the-fact, you're in for a rude surprise.