Capital punishment for felony murder?

[didymus]

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the idea of felony murder, that accomplices to a crime are guilty of and deaths that result from the crime even if they didn’t personally pull the trigger, e.g., a getaway diver.

I was talking to my brother who is a lawyer in Delaware & he tells me that not only DE but other states have capital punishment for felony murder.

To me this seems grossly immoral. I’ll grant the propriety of capital punishment in limited circumstances. But killing someone who didn’t actually do the killing, who may not even know it was going to happen?

Please.

 

[ciero]

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the idea of felony murder, that accomplices to a crime are guilty of and deaths that result from the crime even if they didn’t personally pull the trigger, e.g., a getaway diver.

I was talking to my brother who is a lawyer in Delaware & he tells me that not only DE but other states have capital punishment for felony murder.

To me this seems grossly immoral. I’ll grant the propriety of capital punishment in limited circumstances. But killing someone who didn’t actually do the killing, who may not even know it was going to happen?

Please.

Why would you think this? The Papal States had capital punishment for much less then felony murder. Horse thieves were hanged, in the Papal States little more then 100 years ago!

 

[JRRTFAN]

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the idea of felony murder, that accomplices to a crime are guilty of and deaths that result from the crime even if they didn’t personally pull the trigger, e.g., a getaway diver.

I was talking to my brother who is a lawyer in Delaware & he tells me that not only DE but other states have capital punishment for felony murder.

To me this seems grossly immoral. I’ll grant the propriety of capital punishment in limited circumstances. But killing someone who didn’t actually do the killing, who may not even know it was going to happen?

Please.

In Florida. if one is involved in a crime where a person is killed, e.g., robbing a 7/11 and the clerk shoots your accomplice, you are up for murder 1.

 

[jilly4ski]

How often do you think people who are charged with felony murder actually get the death penalty. Especially in Delaware, where there has only been about 12 executions since 1992 (none since 2005), none of those appear to be for felony murder, and 18 more sitting on death row now. doc.delaware.gov/information/deathrow_executions.shtml

I am not really a proponent of the death penalty, but think of it this way, lets say someone is committing a felony, and the cops chase them (in vehicles), the cops hit someone and kill them. Whose fault is that? That person died because the criminals were committing a crime/felony causing the cops to give chase and uphold the law. With felony murder you can charge the criminals with murder/manslaughter/etc., even though they did not hit the person, because they could still be considered the cause of the death. (Under normal legal principals they could not be charged with the death of that person).

 

[1ke]

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the idea of felony murder, that accomplices to a crime are guilty of and deaths that result from the crime even if they didn’t personally pull the trigger, e.g., a getaway diver.

I was talking to my brother who is a lawyer in Delaware & he tells me that not only DE but other states have capital punishment for felony murder.

To me this seems grossly immoral. I’ll grant the propriety of capital punishment in limited circumstances. But killing someone who didn’t actually do the killing, who may not even know it was going to happen?

Please.

There are two components to the discussion: the right of the state to excercise the death penalty and whether or not it is prudent to do so.

First, the state does have the right to assess the death penalty.

Second, the Church acknowledges this right but teaches it is limited. It also teaches that in this day and age it should be even MORE limited and unnecessary in almost all cases.

I do believe that a person who is a willing accomplice or otherwise participating in a crime can’t use the “I didn’t know” defense. Bad things happen in the commission of a crime. Yes, they are responsible for the things that happen during that crime and that includes the death of innocent people. So, yes, I believe they are equally guilty of that person’s death.

Do I believe in the application of capital punishment to either the perpetrator or the accomplice? No.

Do I believe that others can legitimately come to a different conclusion on the matter than me? Yes.

 

[1ke]

Why would you think this? The Papal States had capital punishment for much less then felony murder. Horse thieves were hanged, in the Papal States little more then 100 years ago!

Let’s keep things in context.

100 and more years ago, stealing a person’s horse or other livestock was literally stealing their ability to feed their family in most cases. It could be a life or death situation.

Horses today are for pleasure riding. Horses in years past were literally the livelihood of the person-- for agriculture, transportation, to run simple machines.

Horese were expensive, and a man who had his stolen could not call his insurance agent for a replacement!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

In Florida. if one is involved in a crime where a person is killed, e.g., robbing a 7/11 and the clerk shoots your accomplice, you are up for murder 1.

Not necessarily. It might be a lesser degree of murder.

The accused is ultimately responsible for the death of the victim. Having a crime be DP eligible is a good way of negotiating a life sentence as a plea, so the felony murder rule is a great idea for the government.

 

[didymus]

Not necessarily. It might be a lesser degree of murder.

The accused is ultimately responsible for the death of the victim. Having a crime be DP eligible is a good way of negotiating a life sentence as a plea, so the felony murder rule is a great idea for the government.

Well, the whole system of DAs inflating charges to force defendants into plea deals is a whole separate topic.

But as for the death penalty I cannot see it for anything except cold, premeditated murder (and then only in special circumstances) which would not include felony murder.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Well, the whole system of DAs inflating charges to force defendants into plea deals is a whole separate topic.

But as for the death penalty I cannot see it for anything except cold, premeditated murder (and then only in special circumstances) which would not include felony murder.

Charging 2d degree murder for unintended deaths during the commission of a felony could be a strong deterrent.

 

[Antrim]

If a person is an accomplice to a felony murder I think they are as guilty as the person who commited the crime because they chose to be there. We all have a free will to chose between right and wrong. They knew they were doing the wrong thing by going there in the first place.

Antrim

 

[DaveBj]

Well, the whole system of DAs inflating charges to force defendants into plea deals is a whole separate topic.

**But as for the death penalty I cannot see it for anything except cold, premeditated murder (and then only in special circumstances) which would not include felony murder. **

I am known on these forums as a proponent of capital punishment, and I agree with you. In my opinion, “special circumstances” would mean no doubt at all about guilt, not just “no reasonable doubt.” I would also like to see the DP made automatic for people who kidnap and kill children, or kill more than a few people at the same time, but that’s just me thinking that people like that don’t deserve to remain in human society, even locked up.

DaveBj

 

[Ender]

I would also like to see the DP made automatic for people who kidnap and kill children, or kill more than a few people at the same time

I suspect that this is a fairly common position and it brings up an interesting point: why do we distinguish between a mass murderer and a person who murders only one person? I suspect it is because we have lost a sense of the enormity of the crime: we no longer think murdering only one person is all that heinous.

Of all the down sides of the Catechism’s arguments against the use of capital punishment, I think this is perhaps the most damaging. I understand the argument that taking the life of the criminal somehow lessens our respect for all life, but I frankly think this argument is exactly backwards. We are told, and the Church has always accepted this, that a murderer is to be executed because his victim was made in God’s image. As the Catechism of Trent said: *Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.

*We have lost that conception.

Ender

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I suspect that this is a fairly common position and it brings up an interesting point: why do we distinguish between a mass murderer and a person who murders only one person? I suspect it is because we have lost a sense of the enormity of the crime: we no longer think murdering only one person is all that heinous…

A mass murderer can get several life sentences and its likely that evidence of other uncharged crimes will end up in the sentencing report. Re the DP, how many times can a convict be executed?

 

[Ender]

A mass murderer can get several life sentences and its likely that evidence of other uncharged crimes will end up in the sentencing report. Re the DP, how many times can a convict be executed?

This doesn’t address the point I was making which was the loss of the sense of the abominable nature of the crime of murder. It now, apparently, requires the murder of people in groups to cause the public to believe the crime may warrant the death penalty.

Ender

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

This doesn’t address the point I was making which was the loss of the sense of the abominable nature of the crime of murder. It now, apparently, requires the murder of people in groups to cause the public to believe the crime may warrant the death penalty.

Ender

That’s not my professional impression, but proof is in the records themselves, e.g., here’s the record of executions in Texas for the decade 2000-09, looks like the majority are for single killings. Of the others, double homicides predominate over multiple murders.

Other records may show otherwise, of course.

 

[Ender]

That’s not my professional impression, but proof is in the records themselves, e.g., here’s the record of executions in Texas for the decade 2000-09, looks like the majority are for single killings. Of the others, double homicides predominate over multiple murders.

Other records may show otherwise, of course.

I don’t know how to interpret information pertaining only to Texas which has by far the highest number of executions. I was referring to the general perception, at least among those who seem lukewarm to the idea of executions, that capital punishment should be reserved for mass murderers, serial killers, or those who abuse and kill children. That is, to those who appear not to believe that a single murder is heinous enough to merit execution.

Ender

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I don’t know how to interpret information pertaining only to Texas which has by far the highest number of executions. I was referring to the general perception, at least among those who seem lukewarm to the idea of executions, that capital punishment should be reserved for mass murderers, serial killers, or those who abuse and kill children. That is, to those who appear not to believe that a single murder is heinous enough to merit execution.

Ender

The DP is definitely the solution for any first degree murderer.

 

[vz71]

To me this seems grossly immoral. I’ll grant the propriety of capital punishment in limited circumstances. But killing someone who didn’t actually do the killing, who may not even know it was going to happen?

Please.

Keeping the DP on the list of punishments provides the option should circumstances permit. Remember, the DP is not necessarily sought.
It would be a very poor DA that would shoot for the death penalty for someone in the circumstances you describe.

Removing it would needlessly remove options that should rightfully be there for the safety of the public.
If removed, what are we to do with those that were actively complicit in the crime?
Those that do present a grave threat to the public even though they were not the ones pulling the trigger.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the idea of felony murder, that accomplices to a crime are guilty of and deaths that result from the crime even if they didn’t personally pull the trigger, e.g., a getaway diver.

I was talking to my brother who is a lawyer in Delaware & he tells me that not only DE but other states have capital punishment for felony murder.

To me this seems grossly immoral. I’ll grant the propriety of capital punishment in limited circumstances. But killing someone who didn’t actually do the killing, who may not even know it was going to happen?

Please.

I agree with the teaching of the Church.

Case per case.

For the protection of society.

And with JPII;

That in modern society CP is rarely necessary.