4 ms·

I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally g

by x0x0 7y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. Obviously there is a question of proximity, but under Fennell's (presumably charitable) telling of events, he assaulted a man then returned with a co-conspirator; when the victim attempted to defend himself, Fennell threw a bottle at him and watched as his co-conspirator repeatedly stabbed the victim. Fennell then refused to help identify the co-conspirator. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

bsanr2 7y ago
>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. I do. A murder verdict requires action, effect, and malice. How can you prove murderous intent if the defendant didn't personally deliver a lethal blow? His actions might not have intended death. We punish different degrees of homicide differently because they presume differing threats to society.
coldtea 7y ago
>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. You don't? To me it sounds like the epitome of legal absurdity. So, if 3 teenagers decided to steal a car and have a joyride (sure, a stupid and criminal decision, but tons have done it with nobody being hurt), and while trying to do so, the owner comes, and one of the teenagers kills him in the altercation, that means all 3 are "equally guilty"?
- DanBC 7y ago
  Joint Enterprise is usually unjust. But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife? This UK radio programme talks about some of the miscarriages of justice caused by "joint enterprise" verdicts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d44rm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d44rm
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife? Of course, that would be understandable. And I don't think that would need the "joint enterprise" construct to be tried as both being murderers in most legal systems. The unjust concern is for the people who weren't such active participants in the act of murder (or called for it), but just on the "initial" crime.
- tptacek 7y ago
  There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. In California, the rule applies only to participants in the actual killing, unless the victim was a police officer. In Illinois, any killing that results from the commission of a violent ("forcible") crime is attributable to all the participants of the crime, on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone, and went ahead and did it anyways. New York has an expansive felony murder rule, but also an affirmative defense that covers the case you described: if you didn't shoot anyone and didn't know your accomplices were armed, you might not be liable.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. I'm taking issue with the "equally guilty" the grandparent mentioned - so whatever jurisdiction does that. I didn't start complaining about some specific jurisdiction, but about the general idea (as mentioned in the grandparent comment) that there are laws that deem people in such cases "equally guilty". In fact, even the "tamer" California example you gave is already what I characterized as an absurdity (as all 3 kids in my example would be "participants in the actual killing", even though only one did the actual killing - and the others might never had done it or had time to prevent it, they just wanted to commit the initial act (e.g. the joyride). The Illinois example takes it to even further levels of absurdity, if "is attributable to all the participants of the crime" (so e.g. even someone who gave them the details of the car to steal for the joyride, but wasn't even present in the murder. "on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone" -- is some "butterfly effect" level legal conception for such cases...
- x0x0 7y ago
  Yes. They chose to commit a crime and then an assault while armed. What you're trying to whitewash isn't joyriding, it's carjacking. Even for the two that didn't pull the trigger, they could easily foresee the actions they participated in killing someone. If they don't like it, people should refrain from participating in carjacking. And if a member of your criminal group is an idiot liable to hurt someone, you should choose not to commit crimes with that person.

by x0x0 7y ago

bsanr2 7y ago

>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. I do. A murder verdict requires action, effect, and malice. How can you prove murderous intent if the defendant didn't personally deliver a lethal blow? His actions might not have intended death. We punish different degrees of homicide differently because they presume differing threats to society.

coldtea 7y ago

>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. You don't? To me it sounds like the epitome of legal absurdity. So, if 3 teenagers decided to steal a car and have a joyride (sure, a stupid and criminal decision, but tons have done it with nobody being hurt), and while trying to do so, the owner comes, and one of the teenagers kills him in the altercation, that means all 3 are "equally guilty"?

DanBC 7y ago
Joint Enterprise is usually unjust. But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife? This UK radio programme talks about some of the miscarriages of justice caused by "joint enterprise" verdicts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d44rm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d44rm
- coldtea 7y ago
  >But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife? Of course, that would be understandable. And I don't think that would need the "joint enterprise" construct to be tried as both being murderers in most legal systems. The unjust concern is for the people who weren't such active participants in the act of murder (or called for it), but just on the "initial" crime.
tptacek 7y ago
There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. In California, the rule applies only to participants in the actual killing, unless the victim was a police officer. In Illinois, any killing that results from the commission of a violent ("forcible") crime is attributable to all the participants of the crime, on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone, and went ahead and did it anyways. New York has an expansive felony murder rule, but also an affirmative defense that covers the case you described: if you didn't shoot anyone and didn't know your accomplices were armed, you might not be liable.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. I'm taking issue with the "equally guilty" the grandparent mentioned - so whatever jurisdiction does that. I didn't start complaining about some specific jurisdiction, but about the general idea (as mentioned in the grandparent comment) that there are laws that deem people in such cases "equally guilty". In fact, even the "tamer" California example you gave is already what I characterized as an absurdity (as all 3 kids in my example would be "participants in the actual killing", even though only one did the actual killing - and the others might never had done it or had time to prevent it, they just wanted to commit the initial act (e.g. the joyride). The Illinois example takes it to even further levels of absurdity, if "is attributable to all the participants of the crime" (so e.g. even someone who gave them the details of the car to steal for the joyride, but wasn't even present in the murder. "on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone" -- is some "butterfly effect" level legal conception for such cases...
x0x0 7y ago
Yes. They chose to commit a crime and then an assault while armed. What you're trying to whitewash isn't joyriding, it's carjacking. Even for the two that didn't pull the trigger, they could easily foresee the actions they participated in killing someone. If they don't like it, people should refrain from participating in carjacking. And if a member of your criminal group is an idiot liable to hurt someone, you should choose not to commit crimes with that person.