a court shouldn’t be considering things they haven’t been convicted for unless it’s part of the matter before the court.
They didn’t consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It’s up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It’s the convict’s entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren’t convicted have having a family or deep community ties?
A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.
This sentence seems long for the kid’s age, but that’s Alabama. Vote.
It’s the felony murder rule. You intend the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery. It’s one of the reasons doing armed robberies is illegal.
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?
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?
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.
Your name is rather distinctive. But just to make sure I didn’t forget about your shilling for Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes I added a tag. So yeah I’m not surprised you’re in favor of charging people with murder for the police shooting their friends.
No I can disagree with people just fine. But I don’t tolerate the presence of people who use propaganda to defend the most blatant and horrendous war crimes. It’s the same as tolerating the presence of a neo Nazi. For the record Israel hit another IDP camp this week, the EU and Human Rights Watch have said Israel is using starvation as a weapon against the Palestinian people, and now 7 of our allies are restricting or refusing arms sales to Israel.
Furthermore I mean what I said above literally. I am not surprised to find a defender of all of that coming here to defend the felony murder rule being used when the police did the killing.
Or, and this just struck me, are you saying my shit memory for people means I’m churlish?
The two have nothing to do with each other. You seem unhinged. It was also you that brought up Israel. Its a strawman and you just committed to it again in this reply.
Why are you always mean when people disagree with you? I noticed this a lot. You always claim that you can’t dumb it down further to someone else. Strange mechanism to defend your opinion.
If you read most things JustZ, you would probably take that back… JustZ is a genocide denier in every sense of the word and they always say the other person is dumb when they are challenged.
Thanks for the context but a court shouldn’t be considering things they haven’t been convicted for unless it’s part of the matter before the court.
Also it doesn’t matter if the police shooting was justified. Charging this guy with the police shooting is, and always has been, fucked up.
65 years is 3 life sentences in the normal world. That’s not a normal sentence for burglary outside authoritarian countries.
They didn’t consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It’s up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It’s the convict’s entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren’t convicted have having a family or deep community ties?
A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.
This sentence seems long for the kid’s age, but that’s Alabama. Vote.
For lesser crimes, I can agree, but felony stuff. I think it should be more rigid.
It’s the felony murder rule. You intend the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery. It’s one of the reasons doing armed robberies is illegal.
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?
If you commit a felony and during which someone dies, it’s felony murder. Even if you did nothing wrong except whatever felony
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?
That’s the law, but is is actually just?
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.
Oh look someone with a Pro-Genocide tag shows up to defend charging people for the violence committed against them.
Such surprise.
Ridiculous. Go touch grass, honestly. “Pro genocide.” You’re so gullible and reactionary. Such a surprise your media literacy is such utter dogshite.
Your name is rather distinctive. But just to make sure I didn’t forget about your shilling for Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes I added a tag. So yeah I’m not surprised you’re in favor of charging people with murder for the police shooting their friends.
Thats churlish. You can’t handle disagreeing with someone?
Why not just say: “I haven’t figured out how to handle my emotions yet”?
No I can disagree with people just fine. But I don’t tolerate the presence of people who use propaganda to defend the most blatant and horrendous war crimes. It’s the same as tolerating the presence of a neo Nazi. For the record Israel hit another IDP camp this week, the EU and Human Rights Watch have said Israel is using starvation as a weapon against the Palestinian people, and now 7 of our allies are restricting or refusing arms sales to Israel.
Furthermore I mean what I said above literally. I am not surprised to find a defender of all of that coming here to defend the felony murder rule being used when the police did the killing.
Or, and this just struck me, are you saying my shit memory for people means I’m churlish?
The two have nothing to do with each other. You seem unhinged. It was also you that brought up Israel. Its a strawman and you just committed to it again in this reply.
Okay let me break this down Barney style.
Support for Authoritarian A makes support for Authoritarian B unsurprising.
Get it now?
You only reveal your failure to understand my position. Again, sorry I can’t dumb it down for you any further, the subject inherently complex.
Your position isn’t complex. It’s just reprehensible.
Why are you always mean when people disagree with you? I noticed this a lot. You always claim that you can’t dumb it down further to someone else. Strange mechanism to defend your opinion.
To be fair, they replied to a question in good faith and then the other person replied by calling them pro-genocide.
If you read most things JustZ, you would probably take that back… JustZ is a genocide denier in every sense of the word and they always say the other person is dumb when they are challenged.