• Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery.

    I don’t understand why that is being equated with murder though. If I would have forced my accomplice into the life threatening situation that got them killed, sure, I would be guilty of their death; but if we assume that they went along willingly how can I get blamed that they got themselves in the situation where (someone else!) killed them?

    • Pieisawesome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you commit a felony and during which someone dies, it’s felony murder. Even if you did nothing wrong except whatever felony

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, we’re asking if that’s moral? We already have laws about being party to a murder or conspiracy to murder. Why do we need to automatically extend liability?

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You shared the intent to do the crime, including all its foreseeable consequences.

      Criminal liability criminalizes the forming bad intentions (conspiracy and attempt, inchoate crimes) and the bad action of advancing those intention (completed crimes, choate crimes; robbery, murder).

      Felony murder liability says: don’t do that (don’t conspire to do a felony that may likely kill someone and which then did kill someone).

      The death arose from the shared bad intent, so the consequences are fairly shared. That’s the theory. I know some people who find this rule controversial. I find it controversial as applied, sometimes, but not in theory. It’s the economics of the rule. Can’t have people hatching dangerous conspiracies to do felonies.