Felony Murder Rule
As explained in class the “Felony Murder Rule” can be defined as “any death resulting from the commission or attempted commission of a felony is murder.” (Black’s Law dictionary (7th ed.)) This rule does not require mens rea, but rather guilt is determined by the commitment or attempted commitment of another act that is a felony. Knowing that you could possibly have to commit murder if you use a weapon in the act of say a robbery or if you drive in an emotional state (which could cause reckless driving) or even intoxicated and cause an accident or kill someone is to me sufficient to use the felony murder rule. Mens rea in theory might be met because the perpetrator knows that death of someone is possible outcome of their
…show more content…
actions. The felony murder rule might fall under the “Strict Liability” umbrella, not sure as we have not discussed in exhaustive detail. Where the felony murder rule line for me is drawn when the perpetrator of the crime knows that something could happen even if that is not their intention and they use a weapon (car, knife, gun...etc..), i.e. you are told by a friend you should not drive in your current emotional state (you have been told you are “in no state to drive”) or you have been drinking and should not drive, or you use a weapon in a robbery or in any intentional felony act. Knowing and intentional are the keys to me for the felony rule to apply, and yes there most likely would be cases where there would be an exception, laws should be fluid. If a person is driving a car and a water main breaks right before they get to an intersect, and the driver has no way of knowing the road is now slippery and dangerous to drive on, he comes to the stop sign at the intersection and attempts to stop, he loses control of the car. His out of control car hits a person working in their yard and kills them. He was driving his car recklessly at the time of the homicide, but he did not knowingly drive his car recklessly. Yes, we did have the “cruise control” case which is similar to tis example. But the cruise control case the driver gave control of his speed away willing, our driver did not. Our driver did not leave the house knowing that he would recklessly drive his car due to the water main break. We have two victims in this example, the driver and the person killed working in their yard. A perpetrator would know that something could happen, even if it is not their intention to cause murder or death to someone else. Even though mens rea would not be met in second act the fact he/she knew it was a possible outcome is sufficient. There are a few cases that this rule should not apply, when a perpetrator of a crime is not the person who caused the death. If say a robber is in a bank and he is not armed and does not say he is and passes a note to a teller demanding money and a bystander thinking they are helping the bank pulls a gun and shoots the teller by accident. The shooter is the person who knowingly carried and pulled a gun and shot someone, he was not protecting his personal property. Our shooters fate is not part of this discussion. If this happened in a person’s home and they were protecting their home and he shot a person in his house by accident then the robber (who is armed) should be charged with felony murder in addition to the felony burglary. As with most laws and rules there is a grey area and it is case by case. So if you knowingly commit a felony crime with a weapon and even if it was not your intention for someone to die and a side result is the death of another person and you directly caused that death you should be charged with felony murder for that death. Again, knowing and intentional are the keys to me for the felony rule to apply, and yes there most likely would be cases where there would be an exception, laws should be fluid. Here is a clear example of when the felony murder rule should apply.
A driver we will call Joe for this example receives a phone call that his little brother was playing with a gun and the gun went off and killed his aunt. Joe is at his girlfriend’s parents’ house at a 4th of July picnic, he decides to rush home. His girlfriend tells him she should drive because he had a couple beers and he is upset and in not state to be driving. Joe decides to drive. While driving home at excessive speed (felony speed), he hits and kills a pedestrian crossing the road. The pedestrian is not in a cross walk, it is a country road and there is not one for miles, the pedestrian is at the bottom of a hill when he crosses the road. When to car strikes the pedestrian it is airborne and takes over a half mile to stop. This is a case where the felony murder rule should apply. Joe, made a choice to drive under emotional stress, he had been drinking and his facilities would have been impaired and he elected to drive and drove at an excessive speed, people live along that road he was driving and someone could have been walking and he should have known better, he drives that road often. The felony murder rule should not apply to cases that people do not commit the act themselves, Joe’s girlfriend should not be liable for the death of the pedestrian, even though she tried to get Joe to let her drive. Joe did not intend to harm anyone but he did know he should not have been driving, and in his mental …show more content…
state he was not in complete control of his facilities. He had been drinking and was emotional distraught as well as he was driving too fast, the speed limit was 55 and he was driving over 8 mile per hour. This examples shows a cause that a person made the choice to drive even though they knew they should not be driving. You know if you are committing a crime with a weapon that could cause someone’s death, i.e. a gun, a car, even a knife something could go wrong even if that was not your intention, the possibility exists. A driver who drives while drunk knows that they could kill someone, even if at the time they do not think they are drunk, you know you are impaired, you feel off. A person who commits armed robbery knows there is a chance that they will have to use the weapon or someone use a weapon trying to stop them. The premise that you are knowingly committing a felony, to me means you know that something could change while committing the act and you could kill someone else. If you knowingly undertake such an endeavor that could cause the death of someone then you should be liable for that death, if it is a felony act you are committing then mens rea should not apply. I am of the opinion that the felony murder rule/law needs to be more uniform, a federal law might be the best route to go, but can you use interstate commerce to write such a law, not sure you can.
We do not have enough time or space to take a hard look at the felony murder rule, and since we do not know the specific laws in each state I would say in the broadest of sense of the idea that I have laid out above I agree with the idea. However, I do not believe the felony murder rule should carry a punishment of death. Capital punishment without a strong mens rea, is asking too much of the system. I would not be a good choice to be a lawyer in this type of case, or maybe I would be a good lawyer for the defense because I would think very specific rules should apply for you to use a felony murder rule for
prosecution. * The pedestrian example noted above is a true story, my father was the pedestrian and no charges were filed against the driver. I think I might be biased.
On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.
Under MPC/State Statutes, Murder must have the element of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing (Criminal Law Outline – Homicide, 2009). The MPC provides that a person is guilty of criminal homicide if they take the life of another person being purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. MPC divides criminal homicide into three rather than two offenses: murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. Under MPC there must be extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
RE: Why is John L. Long, contractor, charged with a Misdemeanor instead of Felony for his
Murder is still a crime, and there is a fine line between murder and a
This crime can be classified as manslaughter and murder as well. There is about 426 incidents of non-negligent homicide, males are more of a victim than females are when it comes to this crime of a rate of 74% for males and 25% for females which is huge for males not by surprisingly. The most often ages of people that is a victim (1,062) or an offender (1,509) of non-negligent homicide crimes are between the ages of 20-29. The (UCR) which is the FBI uniform crime report says that agencies don’t classify suicide, traffic fatalities and etc. as death of non-negligent
With the rapid increase in crime rates, the defendants must act recklessly or intentionally to be held guilty. Crimes can be classified into two types of intents; general, and specific intent.
Bob McCulloch, Missouri state prosecutor, argues that this type of punishment is very appropriate. He also points out that the death penalty punishment is not applicable to the type of murder that we daily see on the television, or read about in the newspapers, but to those that are “particularly horrendous,” such as multiple murders, murders for hire, and so on (qtd in “The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty”). He even goes on to describe one murder case that he worked on, as an example of a crime worthy of the death penalty. It’s the case of a man who gutted his girlfriend and her infant, and then cut off the baby’s head. A lot of death penalty supporters, sixty five percent to be more precise, believe in the Biblical saying “an eye for an eye,” arguing that the punishment really should fit the crime. They also believe that the family of a victim has the right to some type of a closure, and that the death penalty is the best way to provide them with one. John McAdams, Marquette University’s professor of political science, argues that by executing a murderer one cannot go wrong: “If you execute a murderer and it stops other murders, ...
“Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder.”
The “mens rea” of first degree murder is that the person, with time and intent, planned out or premeditated the murder. The “actus reas” of first degree murder is the actual act of committing the murder after planning it (Lippman, 2006).
So imagine this you and your friend are coming home from a movie and while you two were heading home a under age drunk driver decides they want swerve into your lane and collide head on to you, this leaves you a dead best friend, and a stoned driver that thought it would be fine to drive home while under the influence. Now why did the drunk driver not have a better judgment? The judgment of the drunk driver was left at the party, and now those 40’s aren't worth the 15 years of imprisonment.
Have you ever thought about if the person next to you is a killer or a rapist? If he is, what would you want from the government if he had killed someone you know? He should receive the death penalty! Murderers and rapists should be punished for the crimes they have committed and should pay the price for their wrongdoing. Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder.
A crime consists of an actus reus and a mens rea, in order to obtain a conviction of a criminal charge there must be a concurrence between the actus reus and mens rea. The elements of a criminal act (actus reus) are: act, cause, social harm or omission condemned under a criminal statute (Lippman, 2012). The elements of mens rea: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (Lippman, 2012). Attempted murder is the failed attempt to kill another human being deliberately, intentionally or recklessly (USLegal, 2014). “Georgia Code Title 16, Section 16-4-1: A person commits the offense of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. Section 16-4-2: A person may be convicted of the offense of criminal attempt if the crime attempted was actually committed in pursuance of the attempt but may not be convicted of both the criminal attempt and the completed crime….” (Young, 2014, para. 1-2).
In the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ...
Murder should be punished in a manner similar to the way it was committed. A man convicted of a cold-blooded shooting murder such as a drive-by shooting should go before a firing squad. Each man in that firing squad would fire one at a time so the convicted would not know when the angel of death would come for him. A man convicted of strangulation murder should be hung at high noon. A man convicted of a beating death should be slowly beaten until death comes. A Jeffery Dahmer style murderer should suffer dismemberment and decapitation.
... system is overflowing with many cases involving violent crime, but it doesn't seem rational to have a system in place where there are cases where first degree murder has occurred and the sentence doesn't match the violation. I believe that if you take a life, you deserve a life sentence in prison. Allowing criminals to get away with murder is something that will hurt all of us. If we live in a world where this continues to happen, the system will fail to do its job to protect our city's from the worst kind of criminal.