Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
This is where I have to disagree. Why should you not hold the guy who initiated the crime with any resultant after effects, responsible? After all, if a group of 4 initiate a bank robbery and anyone dies, including one of the bank robbers, the surviving bank robbers would be charged with that murder.
|
Again this is going to differ from state to state. What we are talking about here is the felony-murder rule which, essentially, holds criminals liable for deaths caused in the furtherance of certain felonies (including armed robbery). The problem with deaths caused by others is that it is not in the furtherance of the crime and the robbers wouldn't be liable then. Some states have drafted new legislation in the last decade or so that makes any deaths within the foreseeable risk of the commission of the felony fall under the rule. I know that New York, Wisconsin & New Jersey have adopted such laws and there it doesn't matter who did actual killing while in states that haven't enacted specific legislation the common law would still stand.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
Last edited by MuadDib; 11-03-2006 at 02:15 PM..
|