Felony murder rule in the US.

[elle]

If there is one thing that sets the US apart from the world (and sets them back) is their "moralistic" black and white views that they impose on issues.

This article brings home the absurdity of these positions. Every other country including INDIA (for christ's sakes) has abandoned the felony murder rule (in the 50s!) because of it's obvious disproportionality and hence injustice.

I wont' go so far as to say this man is completely innocent (accomplice by incidental occurrence), but how does it make sense that he gets a life sentence. No car =no crime? Are they insane? A murderous freak will kill in time. Jesus. Talk about heavy handed-although clumsy injustice.

www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Even the (idiotic) prosecutor says, “Whether or not the felony murder rule can result in disproportionate justice is a matter of opinion,” Mr. Rimmer said. “The father of Jessica Snyder does not think so.”

Yes. OPINION. Shouldn't law courts be governed by laws and NOT the opinions of loved ones who will surely back such drastic measures. How can the US be trusted to make any decisions when they still have barbaric views on abortion and crazy laws such as these.

The UK is not perfect, but when it came to the issue of ahorrific young murderer being extradited to Italy, and the wife of the murdered going nuts because the law stepped in to say it was against the murderers human rights to send him to a place he was only born in (and not bred in), all the opinion articles upheld the law in this case. I found that an interesting and contentious issue but I actually felt it woudl be fairer to extradite that bastard in that case. Although I see the point they make about justice on differing levels and why as a person in the justice system you have to be *objective* for the sake of it (sake of the justice system that is).

In terms of evolving laws that take into account the complexities of the law, I just can't believe (some US states) still dish out this raw deal. I'm assuming not all states do this..i dunno..anybody a US lawyer.

[~bep_pu~]

I honestly think he can't be held accountable to the crime at all because the motive was not murder, but burglary.

Even if the motive had been murder, lending his car to the murderers, even knowingly, can't possibly be reason enough to sentence him to life without parole. Lending the car facilitates the murder, it does not cause it per se. So i don't understand how he could be charged with first degree murder?
Its absurd. the shotgun facilitated the murder much more than the car... So in that logic Mr. snyder should have been sentenced alongside the other guys. no gun, no murder.


poor guy. im glad its got media coverage. i guess it helps that he doesnt look like ur average stereotypical criminal.



He's actually quite hot. what a shame

[elle]

Hahaha...actually he kinda looks smart and not like a criminal at all...

back to the point. In this case it just sounds like he's a really laid back guy-he heard they were gunna do something "bad" but otherwise he had no idea. I don't really see the accountability there.

That, plus I'm the kind of person that is incredibly laid back about that kind of stuff-at uni I would chuck my keys to whoever was in the office to do runs for whatever. I mean basically it means you wouldn't be able to trust anybody. It may sound stupid to some people who never lend their car out but there really are people who don't give a f***, it's just another item. It's goddamn transport. What if the murderers went and got public transport? Could they then sue the transport operators? That's insane.

[~bep_pu~]

elle said:

Hahaha...actually he kinda looks smart and not like a criminal at all...

back to the point. In this case it just sounds like he's a really laid back guy-he heard they were gunna do something "bad" but otherwise he had no idea. I don't really see the accountability there.

That, plus I'm the kind of person that is incredibly laid back about that kind of stuff-at uni I would chuck my keys to whoever was in the office to do runs for whatever. I mean basically it means you wouldn't be able to trust anybody. It may sound stupid to some people who never lend their car out but there really are people who don't give a f**k, it's just another item. It's goddamn transport. What if the murderers went and got public transport? Could they then sue the transport operators? That's insane.

the difference with the public transport is that the bus driver doesn't know ur plans, but apparently our guy here knew that they wanted to use the car to steal the weed or whatever and possibly injure people who got in the way.

so i do believe he is an accomplice, but definitly not to murder. but an accomplice to planned burglary or something..

i think he is guilty of not preventing the crime (burglary, not murder)

[elle]

beppunisan said:

elle said:

Hahaha...actually he kinda looks smart and not like a criminal at all...

back to the point. In this case it just sounds like he's a really laid back guy-he heard they were gunna do something "bad" but otherwise he had no idea. I don't really see the accountability there.

That, plus I'm the kind of person that is incredibly laid back about that kind of stuff-at uni I would chuck my keys to whoever was in the office to do runs for whatever. I mean basically it means you wouldn't be able to trust anybody. It may sound stupid to some people who never lend their car out but there really are people who don't give a f**k, it's just another item. It's goddamn transport. What if the murderers went and got public transport? Could they then sue the transport operators? That's insane.

the difference with the public transport is that the bus driver doesn't know ur plans, but apparently our guy here knew that they wanted to use the car to steal the weed or whatever and possibly injure people who got in the way.

so i do believe he is an accomplice, but definitly not to murder. but an accomplice to planned burglary or something..

agreed.

[Mr Brad Pitt]

beppunisan said:

so i do believe he is an accomplice, but definitly not to murder. but an accomplice to planned burglary or something..

i think he is guilty of not preventing the crime (burglary, not murder)

Yeah.

But he can also be charged for, how to put it, "potential murder": he was supposed to know, at the time he lent his car, that burglary can turn bloody.

Of course, a life-long sentence is way too much.
Have the accomplices been given the same sentence?

[cm]

executing criminals is the least of this nation's concerns...when we are executing innocent civilians in bombing raids

[ConceptDesign]

Perhaps the parents of Robert Hawkins should be charged with felony murder too: no conception, no crime.

[elle]

seejayeff said:

executing criminals is the least of this nation's concerns...when we are executing innocent civilians in bombing raids

Yessss...and Bush didnt use the byword "moral imperative" as justification for a bogus war, hence turning the issue into a completely black and white affair.

You agree through the war that it is perverse to seek a sense of moral purity when this is gained at the expense of the suffering of others.

Yet you support the mistreatment of individuals in your own turf.

Well that's just great.

[juancarlos]

Sounds like a case that needs to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, once it winds its way through the appeals process. It may be unusual punishment which violates rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Also, since U.S. laws are determined by precedent cases, there has to be a different court decision to set a new precedent or the state legislature itself must change the laws.