when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a [felony], the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.
Is this common in western countries, or one of those "only in the US and/or some third world country" things, like the "three-strikes" and the "death penalty" (even for juveniles) laws?
In this case, Mr Fennell watched a man get attacked, did nothing to help the man and even actively participated in the attack, and when the man died, Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. I don't think it's a stretch, ethically or legally, to assign him significant blame for the killing, especially since his refusal to testify deprived his victims of any further justice.
That doesn't mean I agree with the life sentence (I absolutely do not), but twenty-five years doesn't seem wildly disproportionate to me.
Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify.
Do you have any evidence for this, or are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent.
> are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive?
Who gives a shit what his motivation was? The legal system sure doesn't. The effect of his refusal to testify was that the killer could not be brought to justice. His participation in the attack and his refusal to cooperate after the man's death makes him morally and legally culpable in that death. This is not controversial in any modern legal jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
> Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent.
You appear to be confusing this issue with our Fifth Amendment indemnity against self-incrimination. Mr. Fennell was not examined as a witness, but rather as a defendant. If you refuse to testify against an accomplice, and you expect to be somehow protected from a charge of accessory-after-the-fact, you're in for a rude surprise.
The felony murder rule comes from British common law. While it’s been abolished in the UK, Canada, and parts of Australia. But civil law jurisdictions have statutory crimes that achieve the same effect. For example, in Germany this crime probably could’ve been prosecuted as “robbery with deadly outcome,” which can carry life imprisonment.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty.
Obviously there is a question of proximity, but under Fennell's (presumably charitable) telling of events, he assaulted a man then returned with a co-conspirator; when the victim attempted to defend himself, Fennell threw a bottle at him and watched as his co-conspirator repeatedly stabbed the victim. Fennell then refused to help identify the co-conspirator.
>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty.
I do. A murder verdict requires action, effect, and malice. How can you prove murderous intent if the defendant didn't personally deliver a lethal blow? His actions might not have intended death. We punish different degrees of homicide differently because they presume differing threats to society.
>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty.
You don't? To me it sounds like the epitome of legal absurdity.
So, if 3 teenagers decided to steal a car and have a joyride (sure, a stupid and criminal decision, but tons have done it with nobody being hurt), and while trying to do so, the owner comes, and one of the teenagers kills him in the altercation, that means all 3 are "equally guilty"?
There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. In California, the rule applies only to participants in the actual killing, unless the victim was a police officer. In Illinois, any killing that results from the commission of a violent ("forcible") crime is attributable to all the participants of the crime, on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone, and went ahead and did it anyways. New York has an expansive felony murder rule, but also an affirmative defense that covers the case you described: if you didn't shoot anyone and didn't know your accomplices were armed, you might not be liable.
>There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with.
I'm taking issue with the "equally guilty" the grandparent mentioned - so whatever jurisdiction does that.
I didn't start complaining about some specific jurisdiction, but about the general idea (as mentioned in the grandparent comment) that there are laws that deem people in such cases "equally guilty".
In fact, even the "tamer" California example you gave is already what I characterized as an absurdity (as all 3 kids in my example would be "participants in the actual killing", even though only one did the actual killing - and the others might never had done it or had time to prevent it, they just wanted to commit the initial act (e.g. the joyride).
The Illinois example takes it to even further levels of absurdity, if "is attributable to all the participants of the crime" (so e.g. even someone who gave them the details of the car to steal for the joyride, but wasn't even present in the murder. "on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone" -- is some "butterfly effect" level legal conception for such cases...
Yes. They chose to commit a crime and then an assault while armed. What you're trying to whitewash isn't joyriding, it's carjacking.
Even for the two that didn't pull the trigger, they could easily foresee the actions they participated in killing someone. If they don't like it, people should refrain from participating in carjacking. And if a member of your criminal group is an idiot liable to hurt someone, you should choose not to commit crimes with that person.
But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife?
>But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife?
Of course, that would be understandable. And I don't think that would need the "joint enterprise" construct to be tried as both being murderers in most legal systems.
The unjust concern is for the people who weren't such active participants in the act of murder (or called for it), but just on the "initial" crime.
Highly dependent upon context, I suppose. If you came forward to break an otherwise improbable or cold case, I could imagine that would warrant consideration.
Of course someone could sing to save their skin, and in doing so lie.
It’s a balance of incentives, I suppose? This is why we have a human system of law, not an algorithm.
