Difference between revisions of "Murder" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(copied from Wikipedia)
Line 52: Line 52:
 
When the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] greatly restricted laws prohibiting abortions in its famous [[Roe v. Wade]] decision (1973) even those sanctions became harder to use. This, among other factors, meant that a more brutal attack, ensuring that the baby died without breathing, would result in a lesser charge. Various states passed "fetal homicide" laws, making killing of an unborn child murder; the laws differ about the stage of development at which the child is protected. After several well-publicized cases, [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] passed the [[Unborn Victims of Violence Act]], which specifically criminalizes harming a fetus, with the same penalties as for a similar attack upon a person, when the attack would be a federal offense. Most such attacks fall under state laws; for instance, [[Scott Peterson]] was convicted of murdering his unborn son as well as his wife under Californian pre-existing fetal homicide law.
 
When the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] greatly restricted laws prohibiting abortions in its famous [[Roe v. Wade]] decision (1973) even those sanctions became harder to use. This, among other factors, meant that a more brutal attack, ensuring that the baby died without breathing, would result in a lesser charge. Various states passed "fetal homicide" laws, making killing of an unborn child murder; the laws differ about the stage of development at which the child is protected. After several well-publicized cases, [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] passed the [[Unborn Victims of Violence Act]], which specifically criminalizes harming a fetus, with the same penalties as for a similar attack upon a person, when the attack would be a federal offense. Most such attacks fall under state laws; for instance, [[Scott Peterson]] was convicted of murdering his unborn son as well as his wife under Californian pre-existing fetal homicide law.
  
 +
==Felony Murder==
  
 +
 +
The '''felony murder''' rule is a legal [[doctrine]] current in some [[common law]] countries that broadens the crime of [[murder]] in two ways.  First, when a victim dies accidentally or without specific intent in the course of an applicable [[felony]], it increases what might have been [[manslaughter]] (or even a simple [[tort]]) to murder.  Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.  While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an obviously dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner.  For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.
 +
 +
According to most commentators, the [[common law]] rule dates to the [[twelfth century]] and took its modern form in the [[eighteenth century]] {{Fact|date=April 2007}}.  Because the rule requires no intent to kill, or even to do bodily harm, it has been criticized as unjust {{Fact|date=April 2007}}.  Accordingly, it was abolished in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1957 by the [[Homicide_Act_1957|Homicide Act of 1957]]. In some jurisdictions (such as [[Victoria, Australia]]), the common law felony-murder rule has been abolished but replaced by a similar statutory provision. <ref>''Crimes Act'' 1958 s.3A</ref>
 +
 +
===Origin===
 +
The concept of '''felony murder''' originates in the rule of [[transferred intent]], which is older than the [[limit of legal memory]].  In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended.  Thus, in a classic example, a [[poaching|poacher]] shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the bushes.  Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even suspect his presence, the [[mens rea]] of the poaching is transferred to the [[actus reus]] of the killing.<ref>[http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Principles/Mens%20Rea%20Cases%202.htm  Lawteacher.net explanation of transferred intent]</ref>
 +
 +
Some commentators regard this as a [[legal fiction]] whereby the law pretends that the person who intended one wrongful act, also intends all the consequences of that act, however unforeseen.  Others regard it as an example of [[strict liability]], whereby a person who chooses to commit a crime is considered absolutely responsible for all the possible consequences of that action.  Lord Mustill regards the historical rule as a convergence of these views.<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral02.htm Lord Mustill's exposition to the House of Lords, 1994]</ref>
 +
 +
===Description===
 +
However, the actual situation is not as clear-cut as the above summary implies. In reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions.  To "qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote.  If the receiver of a [[forgery|forged]] check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder.  Furthermore, the [[Merger doctrine#Criminal law|merger doctrine]] excludes felonies that are presupposed by a murder charge.  For example, nearly all murders involve some type of [[assault]], but so do many cases of [[manslaughter]].  To count any death that occurred during the course of an assault as felony murder would obliterate a distinction carefully set by the legislature; however, merger may not apply when an assault against one person results in the death of another[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ks&vol=supct/2004/20040625/&invol=89127]. 
 +
 +
To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many jurisdictions in the [[United States]] explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code lists [[robbery]], [[rape]] or [[forcible deviant sexual intercourse]], [[arson]], [[burglary]], [[kidnapping]], and felonious escape.  [[Federal government of the United States|Federal]] law specifies additional crimes, including [[terrorism]] and [[carjacking]].
 +
 +
There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder.  Jurisdictions that hold to the ''agency theory'' admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime.  Jurisdictions that use the ''proximate cause theory'' include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several [[proximate cause]] tests to determine if the chain of events between the felony and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death.
 +
 +
Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder.  In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill.  For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery.  Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house.  The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder.  But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.
 +
 +
===By Country===
 +
 +
====United States====
 +
 +
In the [[United States]], felony murder is generally first-degree murder, and often a capital offense.  When the government seeks to impose the [[Felony Murder and the Death Penalty|death penalty on someone convicted of felony murder]], the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]] imposes additional limitations on the state's power to do so.  The death penalty may not be imposed if the defendant is merely a [[Enmund v. Florida|minor participant]] and did not actually kill or intend to kill.  However, the death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a [[Tison v. Arizona|major participant]] in the underlying felony and "exhibits extreme indifference to human life."
 +
 +
Every jurisdiction in the United States incorporates some form of the felony murder rule as part of its definition of murder.
 +
 +
====Examples====
 +
 +
''The following example employs general principles of law in the [[United States]] for the purpose of illustration.''
 +
 +
The Doe Gang attempts to rob a bank.  John, Jane and Richard Doe will do the actual robbery.  Mary Doe will act as lookout, and Joe Schmoe waits around the corner with the getaway vehicle.  Mike Meek is a bank employee who is to make sure the alarm is not sounded.  The robbery is a violation of both federal and state law, and can separately be prosecuted under each without incurring [[double jeopardy]].  Both jurisdictions employ the felony murder rule: for purposes of this example, we assume that federal law employs the ''proximate cause theory'' and state law the ''agency theory''.
 +
 +
During the course of the robbery, the Bank Manager suffers an [[aortic dissection]] and dies almost instantly.  A teller hits the silent alarm in the confusion.  The police arrive, and Mary surrenders promptly.  When the police enter the bank, John, Jane and Richard open fire: Jane kills an officer while Richard's wild shot kills John.  Joe Schmoe hears the shots and flees.  He does not see a child playing in front of the car, and accidentally kills her.  Later, officers' bullets kill Richard and the teller behind him.  The result of all this carnage is as follows:
 +
#Mary is probably not guilty of any felony murder; while she will face charges for the robbery, she will probably not face any other charges, because she surrendered to authorities before any violence.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
 +
#The manager's death is almost certainly not felony murder, because the connection to the robbery is too remote.<ref>''People v. Stamp'', 2 Cal. App. 3d 203 (1959) [http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/calstamp.htm] (court ruled in an extremely similar situation that the robbers were liable under the felony murder doctrine).</ref>
 +
#The officer's death is both first-degree murder for Jane, and felony murder for Joe and Mike, under both federal and state law.  Jane may be charged with felony murder as a tactical matter if the ballistics are inconclusive.
 +
#John's death is felony murder for all three under federal law and probably state law.  Some states might not allow it because he was a participant in the crime.
 +
#The teller's death is felony murder for all three survivors under federal, but not state law, because they were killed by a non-participant.{{clarifyme|date=April 2007}} Because the officer that killed the teller was not a participant in the felony, under the state's "agency theory" the felons would not be liable for the death because it was not committed "in furtherance of the felony." On the other hand, under the alternative proximate cause theory (in this example, the theory adopted under federal law), it was reasonably foreseeable that an innocent teller would be killed by responding officers' fire, so the felons would be liable for the death. Note that even though Joe had ceased to participate in the robbery at this point, his flight counts as a [[continuous transaction]], so the rule continues to apply.
 +
#Richard's death is felony murder under federal, but not state law, for the same reasons.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} In practice, many prosecutors are reluctant to make the charge when an accomplice is killed by police.
 +
#The child's death is felony murder for all three in both federal and state court.  Again, the fact that Joe was trying to flee does not mitigate the crime.
 +
#Jane is subject to the death penalty, even if the ballistics are inconclusive, because she attempted and intended to kill.
 +
#Joe is subject to the death penalty because he killed, albeit accidentally.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
 +
#Mike escapes the death penalty, because he neither killed nor intended to kill.
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
Line 60: Line 105:
 
*[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral01.htm Lord Mustill on the Common Law concerning murder]
 
*[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral01.htm Lord Mustill on the Common Law concerning murder]
 
*[[Sir Edward Coke]] Co. Inst., Pt. III, ch.7, p. 50
 
*[[Sir Edward Coke]] Co. Inst., Pt. III, ch.7, p. 50
 +
* {{cite journal |first=Guyora|last=Binder|year=2004|month=October|title=The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules|journal=Stanford Law Review}}
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 67: Line 113:
 
*[http://www.culture-of-peace.info/ssov-intro.html Introduction and Updated Information on the Seville Statement on Violence]
 
*[http://www.culture-of-peace.info/ssov-intro.html Introduction and Updated Information on the Seville Statement on Violence]
 
*[http://www.mvfr.org Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, Inc.] - An Anti-Capital Punishment Group
 
*[http://www.mvfr.org Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, Inc.] - An Anti-Capital Punishment Group
 +
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/29/60II/main538407.shtml CBS News Story on Felony Murder rule in California]
 +
* [http://www.prisonsfoundation.org/letters/WHAT'S_WRONG_WITH_THE_FELONY_MURDER_RULE.html Prisons Foundation objection to the rule]
 +
* [http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/page32b.htm Arizona Supreme Court on the rule and the death penalty]
 +
* [http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_134855,00.html The case of Lisl Auman from Colorado, charged with Felony murder for a killing that took place while she was in custody]
 +
* [http://articles.chooselaw.com/general/view/Felony-Murder-or-Constructive-Malice.268.html Paper from ChooseLaw]
  
  
  
  
 
+
{{Credits|Murder|105299690|Felony_murder|136958050|}}
{{Credit1|Murder|105299690|}}
 

Revision as of 22:36, 2 July 2007


Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another. The penalty for murder is usually life imprisonment, and in jurisdictions with capital punishment, the death penalty may be imposed.

Definition

Murder is a homicide committed intentionally. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions. For example, in some parts of the United States anyone who commits a serious crime during which any person dies may be prosecuted for murder (see felony murder). Many jurisdictions recognize a distinction between murder which is premeditated, and manslaughter.

Most countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.

The defenses of insanity or mental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused by schizophrenia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the stress of a trial as to liability. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of the disorder, the verdict "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used. Some countries, such as Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and Australia, allow post-partum depression (post-natal depression) as a defense against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less than a year old (this may be the specific offense of infanticide rather than murder and include the effects of lactation and other aspects of post-natal care). Those who successfully argue a defense based on a mental disorder are usually referred to mandatory clinical treatment until they are certified safe to be released back into the community, rather than prison.

Alternative Uses

The word "murder" is sometimes used colloquially to mean some forms of mistreatment, e.g. a bad singer "murdering" a song, or describing something difficult to handle as "absolute murder." Sometimes sports announcers make comments like "That team is getting murdered out there!" or "The home team was murdered tonight." Murder is also used in the sense of desiring something greatly, e.g. "I could murder a cup of tea." A murder is also the name given to a flock of crows (see collective nouns for birds).

Also, many people use "murder" to describe a killing they feel is unjust or immoral, regardless of the law. For example, many pro-life activists would consider legal abortions to be "murder." Or, a historian might refer to unjust killings committed by governments (such as the Third Reich)as "murder," even if the killings were legal at the time.

In the U.S. 187 is a slang term for murder, and it sometimes appears in popular culture. The number refers to section 187 of the California Penal Code which covers murder.

Murder demographics

Murder rate per 100 000 inhabitants

Murder occurrences vary wildly among different countries and societies. In the Western world, murder rates in most countries have declined significantly during the 20th century and are now between 1-4 cases per 100,000 people per year. Murder rates in Japan and Iceland are among the lowest in the world, around 0.5; the rate of the United States is among the highest among all developed countries, around 5.5 (2004, [2]), with rates in major cities sometimes over 50 per 100,000[3]. Developing countries often have rates of 10-100 murders per 100,000 people per year.

Many researchers have observed significant correlation between murder rates and wealth distribution inequality, as measured by Gini coefficient.[1]

Within the Western world, nearly 90% of all murders are committed by males, with males also being the victims of 74.6% of murders.[2] There is a sharp peak in the age distribution of murderers between the ages of 17 and 30. People become increasingly unlikely to commit a murder as they age. Incidents of children and adolescents committing murders are also extremely rare, nonwithstanding the strong media coverage such cases receive.

Murder demographics are affected by the improvement of trauma care, leading to reduced lethality of violent assaults - thus the murder rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence[3].

Murder in Law

Degrees of Murder

Most countries have a number of different categories of murder, the qualifications of and penalty for differ widely. These degrees vary according to who is killed, the motive of the murder, and the corresponding punishment. Some countries, such as Canada, differentiate based on whether the murder was premeditated or if it was a heat of the moment act. Others, like Finland, Germany and Romania, differentiate murder from manslaughter depending on whether or not there was particular cruelty, endangering of the public, if the murder was for pleasure or if it was intended to conceal another crime. Israel distinguishes between murderers who knew what they were doing versus those who were unaware of the consequences of their actions.

In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to homicide, as to other crimes. If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the Federal Government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive: examples include the District of Columbia, naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in international waters, or a U.S. military base. In cases where a murder involves both state and federal jurisdiction, the offender can be tried and punished separately for each crime without raising issues of double jeopardy.

Modern codifications tend to create a genus of offenses, known collectively as homicide, of which murder is the most serious species, followed by manslaughter which is less serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime at all. Because there are 51 jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this section treats only the crime of murder, and does not deal with state-by-state specifics. Many states have degrees reserved for the murder of police officers or other public officials.

The Viking culture had a very different concept of murder. If a person killed someone, then it was up to the murderer to pay the family fair compensation (weregild) for the labor lost by the member's death. If the perpetrator refused to pay weregild, it was up to the family of the slain to extract it from the perpetrator, or take his life. In Nordic countries, the payment of weregild was used in homicide cases until the 16th century. The only other type of killing with consequences in Viking culture was "unjust killing," i.e. killing someone while they were sleeping or had their back to the killer. While the financial implications of unjust killing were no more severe, the killer in question suffered from a tremendous loss of trust and could be declared an outlaw.

Depending on the determined degree of murder, some countries have a minimum length of prison sentence or automatically seek the death penalty.

Year-and-a-day rule

In some common law jurisdictions, a defendant accused of murder is not guilty if the victim survives for longer than one year and one day after the attack. This reflects the likelihood that if the victim dies, other factors will have contributed to the cause of death, breaking the chain of causation. Subject to any statute of limitations, the accused can still be charged with an offense representing the seriousness of the initial assault. With advances in modern medicine, most countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts of the case.

Murder of a fetus

Fetal homicide laws in the United States

Under the common law, if an assault on a pregnant woman resulted in a stillbirth, it was not considered murder; the child had to have breathed at least once to be murdered. Remedies were limited to criminal penalties for the assault on the woman, and a tort action for loss of the economic services of the eventual child and/or emotional pain and suffering. With the widespread adoption of laws against abortion, the assailant could of course be charged with that offense, but the penalty was often only a fine and a few days in jail.

When the Supreme Court greatly restricted laws prohibiting abortions in its famous Roe v. Wade decision (1973) even those sanctions became harder to use. This, among other factors, meant that a more brutal attack, ensuring that the baby died without breathing, would result in a lesser charge. Various states passed "fetal homicide" laws, making killing of an unborn child murder; the laws differ about the stage of development at which the child is protected. After several well-publicized cases, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which specifically criminalizes harming a fetus, with the same penalties as for a similar attack upon a person, when the attack would be a federal offense. Most such attacks fall under state laws; for instance, Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his unborn son as well as his wife under Californian pre-existing fetal homicide law.

Felony Murder

The felony murder rule is a legal doctrine current in some common law countries that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when a victim dies accidentally or without specific intent in the course of an applicable felony, it increases what might have been manslaughter (or even a simple tort) to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an obviously dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.

According to most commentators, the common law rule dates to the twelfth century and took its modern form in the eighteenth century [citation needed]. Because the rule requires no intent to kill, or even to do bodily harm, it has been criticized as unjust [citation needed]. Accordingly, it was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1957 by the Homicide Act of 1957. In some jurisdictions (such as Victoria, Australia), the common law felony-murder rule has been abolished but replaced by a similar statutory provision. [4]

Origin

The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended. Thus, in a classic example, a poacher shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the bushes. Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even suspect his presence, the mens rea of the poaching is transferred to the actus reus of the killing.[5]

Some commentators regard this as a legal fiction whereby the law pretends that the person who intended one wrongful act, also intends all the consequences of that act, however unforeseen. Others regard it as an example of strict liability, whereby a person who chooses to commit a crime is considered absolutely responsible for all the possible consequences of that action. Lord Mustill regards the historical rule as a convergence of these views.[6]

Description

However, the actual situation is not as clear-cut as the above summary implies. In reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions. To "qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote. If the receiver of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder. Furthermore, the merger doctrine excludes felonies that are presupposed by a murder charge. For example, nearly all murders involve some type of assault, but so do many cases of manslaughter. To count any death that occurred during the course of an assault as felony murder would obliterate a distinction carefully set by the legislature; however, merger may not apply when an assault against one person results in the death of another[4].

To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many jurisdictions in the United States explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviant sexual intercourse, arson, burglary, kidnapping, and felonious escape. Federal law specifies additional crimes, including terrorism and carjacking.

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the felony and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death.

Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.

By Country

United States

In the United States, felony murder is generally first-degree murder, and often a capital offense. When the government seeks to impose the death penalty on someone convicted of felony murder, the Eighth Amendment imposes additional limitations on the state's power to do so. The death penalty may not be imposed if the defendant is merely a minor participant and did not actually kill or intend to kill. However, the death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a major participant in the underlying felony and "exhibits extreme indifference to human life."

Every jurisdiction in the United States incorporates some form of the felony murder rule as part of its definition of murder.

Examples

The following example employs general principles of law in the United States for the purpose of illustration.

The Doe Gang attempts to rob a bank. John, Jane and Richard Doe will do the actual robbery. Mary Doe will act as lookout, and Joe Schmoe waits around the corner with the getaway vehicle. Mike Meek is a bank employee who is to make sure the alarm is not sounded. The robbery is a violation of both federal and state law, and can separately be prosecuted under each without incurring double jeopardy. Both jurisdictions employ the felony murder rule: for purposes of this example, we assume that federal law employs the proximate cause theory and state law the agency theory.

During the course of the robbery, the Bank Manager suffers an aortic dissection and dies almost instantly. A teller hits the silent alarm in the confusion. The police arrive, and Mary surrenders promptly. When the police enter the bank, John, Jane and Richard open fire: Jane kills an officer while Richard's wild shot kills John. Joe Schmoe hears the shots and flees. He does not see a child playing in front of the car, and accidentally kills her. Later, officers' bullets kill Richard and the teller behind him. The result of all this carnage is as follows:

  1. Mary is probably not guilty of any felony murder; while she will face charges for the robbery, she will probably not face any other charges, because she surrendered to authorities before any violence.[citation needed]
  2. The manager's death is almost certainly not felony murder, because the connection to the robbery is too remote.[7]
  3. The officer's death is both first-degree murder for Jane, and felony murder for Joe and Mike, under both federal and state law. Jane may be charged with felony murder as a tactical matter if the ballistics are inconclusive.
  4. John's death is felony murder for all three under federal law and probably state law. Some states might not allow it because he was a participant in the crime.
  5. The teller's death is felony murder for all three survivors under federal, but not state law, because they were killed by a non-participant. Because the officer that killed the teller was not a participant in the felony, under the state's "agency theory" the felons would not be liable for the death because it was not committed "in furtherance of the felony." On the other hand, under the alternative proximate cause theory (in this example, the theory adopted under federal law), it was reasonably foreseeable that an innocent teller would be killed by responding officers' fire, so the felons would be liable for the death. Note that even though Joe had ceased to participate in the robbery at this point, his flight counts as a continuous transaction, so the rule continues to apply.
  6. Richard's death is felony murder under federal, but not state law, for the same reasons.[citation needed] In practice, many prosecutors are reluctant to make the charge when an accomplice is killed by police.
  7. The child's death is felony murder for all three in both federal and state court. Again, the fact that Joe was trying to flee does not mitigate the crime.
  8. Jane is subject to the death penalty, even if the ballistics are inconclusive, because she attempted and intended to kill.
  9. Joe is subject to the death penalty because he killed, albeit accidentally.[citation needed]
  10. Mike escapes the death penalty, because he neither killed nor intended to kill.

Notes

  1. Poverty Analysis World Bank. Retrieved June 13, 2007.
  2. Male Victims of Violence Facts. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved June 13, 2007.
  3. Harris, Anthony R. and Stephen H. Thomas ; Gene A. Fisher ; David J. Hirsch (05 2002). Murder and medicine: the lethality of criminal assault 1960-1999. Homicide studies 6 (2): 128-166.
  4. Crimes Act 1958 s.3A
  5. Lawteacher.net explanation of transferred intent
  6. Lord Mustill's exposition to the House of Lords, 1994
  7. People v. Stamp, 2 Cal. App. 3d 203 (1959) [1] (court ruled in an extremely similar situation that the robbers were liable under the felony murder doctrine).

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

External links


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.