3 posts...got perma-banned?

It's a very bad law.

 

-----signature-----

My Crim. Law professor was somewhat against it as well, but he also discussed the need for it. It is supposed to help deter people from assisting criminals. Unfortunately, it's difficult for it to act as a deterrent unless people know about it. And - the only way for people to know about it, is if it is used and publicized.

I agree that it may not seem fair, with the negligence standard that is applied. But I'm not certain of a better replacement.

 

-----signature-----

The felony murder rule will never be abolished in the US, because any politician who even suggests it will be labeled "soft on crime" and summarily heaved from office the next election.

 

-----signature-----

Seems over punished.

He should be charged with something, but he wasn't at the crime seen, and did not beat some girl's skull in.

He gave them transportation to get to the crime seen, that should be what he's responsible for, and even then they probably would've made it there somehow anyway, because it was only a mile and a half away.

If they took a bus and said they were going to do a burglary would the bus driver need to be convicted of murder?

What they did when they get there is their responsibility. Not his.

 

-----signature-----

Committing an armed robbery of a dwelling has a very good (or at the very last, a pretty reasonable) chance of becoming an assault or murder. Knowingly assisting someone in an armed robbery means you are an accomplice.

There is a considerable difference between climbing someone's apple tree OUTSIDE their dwelling and breaking INTO their dwelling to steal their apples.

I can understand the ruling but I would have thought it would have been appropriate for the court to be lenient, but to still convict the guy if he knew the folks he loaned his car were going to commit a robbery with it. Obviously it hinges on him knowing that they were going to commit a robbery specifically.


How about this one:

A kid is driving friends around from a party to another - they are all college students or the age of college students - ~20, 21, 22 - whole lives ahead of them. They get into the car. The driver tells everyone to buckle up - this is corroborated by all vehicle occupants after the fact btw. One of his passengers refuses. Also corroborated by all vehicle occupants. The guy keeps on driving is *just* over legal limit for being DUI. They have an accident at ~25 MPH. Passenger who refused to buckle up after being asked to gets killed in a freak twist of circumstance - head smacked against the door frame - seizure, death ensues. All other passengers were perfectly fine from accident because they were wearing seatbelts. Investigation is as positive as it can ever be that if the victim had worn a seatbelt, he'd have been only minimally injured, IF AT ALL. Other vehicle with which they collided was damaged, but nobody in it was hurt at all.

Driver gets convicted of DUI related manslaughter and does serious hard time.

Rationale:

1) Driver was DUI
2) Driver carried passenger not wearing seatbelt (this is the driver's responsibility in some states and if they had been pulled over for a seatbelt violation, driver would have been ticketed, not passenger).
3) Driver's DUI accident resulted in the death of a passenger and driver was irresponsible for not insisting on the seatbelt, on top of his irresponsibly driving drunk.

This is not a made up case btw. I know a person who served on the jury for this case.


Oh and the guy who was convicted was not black. This occurred in the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area.

 

-----signature-----

I'll give it 2 Limberger on a scale of Red to Bananaphone.

 

-----signature-----

Back in my day, law professors didn't criticize the laws, the respected them and that was good enough for us. Law students these days.