what do you others think of this rule? personaly i think its bs
heres an example for the ones that dont have a idea what this rule is:

lets say me and a couple of freinds wants to robe a bank..... opon stealing the cash from the bank clirks, a friend draws a knife and kills a clirk all the others only have toy guns and were not aware of the other freind having a real gun we all run and get arrested later..... we come before the court of law and we all get life in prison for killing the clirk even though only the killer had a real weapon and we were not aware he had one.. there for we only commited a robery not a murder..... but yet we get life

Why would you rob a bank? lol bah I agree it is pretty stupid.:D

Planning on robbing a bank, are we? ;)

There's a simple way around this problem - don't hang around friends with knifes and murderous tendencies. Don't commit crimes.

But no, it isn't particularily just.

Hmm doesn't seem fair at all... but then again, why would you rob a bank anyway?

true, it doesnt seem fair. but how can you convince the jury that you really didnt know your friend had that knife?

for all they know you hit that specific bank because you wanted to kill that clerk you knew and get lots of money too. in planning for the robbery you and your friends pressure jimmy into taking the knife and killing that clerk for you. later hes too scared to admit it and doesnt believe anybody would listen to him anyways. you all go free much earlier and hes carted off for life.



ok maybe thats an extreme situation but you get the idea, without the jury KNOWING the whole story they'd rather give too much time then too little to a potential murderer.

Kinda like getting busted in a car where everyone else but you drinks?

You shouldn't be there in the first place.


Don't hang with them.

Originally posted by Darth Talliusc
true, it doesnt seem fair. but how can you convince the jury that you really didnt know your friend had that knife?

Thats the whole reason why its unfair. :D

If you kill someone while you are committing a felony it becomes a capital crime. The person who actually killed would definately be guilty, as for the others it's up to the jury and the DA. Maybe accessories to the crime, depending on involvement. Doesn't matter whether you knew he had a real weapon or not, that's irrelevant.

Don't know what the punishment is in states without the death penalty, but capital crimes are usually punishable by death. Life with no parole, or maybe sentences carried out consecutively with no parole could be options in states where they don't exucute convicts.

Was that the same bank clerk that was the mother of an 8 month old baby and had just married to her high school sweetheart after the both just finished college and bought the new house down the street. You know, the one with the lavender shutters, the Victrorian one...

Yeah.. they were a cute couple. Poor baby will grow up without a mommy.....

Perhaps if you hadn't been willing to actually comit the crime, your other two friends would never have went through with it. In that case, the bank would never have been robbed that day, and the young mother and newly wed wouldn't have been killed. That would make your actions a contributing factor in the homicide.

I'd say that this type of thing is a matter of perspective and that it would ultimately be up to a jury to decide if the circumstances made you guilty to that degree.

SkinWalker

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The Us legal system is so ridiculous that it can only be a Hollywood-complot in order to get great material for movies.

I mean...seriously: You take a dozen morons from the street (a.k.a Jury) and let them decide the fates of people based solely on which of the lawyers comes up with the best speech. :rolleyes:

yeah... i hear ya Luc.... i heard of this watching 60 minutes the other day... i think this law basicly is ****ed up, this law is only there to scare people off from robbing banks.. stealing... etc.
and thats crap... becuase of all the inicent people that never will see there family again

picture this, me and a couple of friends gets realy drunk and we have never crossed the law then we decide to do something crazy... so we robe an old lady, one of my friends draws a car key and stabs her (hehe its posible,i swear)... we had no idea our friend even would do something like that or anything like that he had been a calm boy all his life, we all come from good homes, finest neighborhoods and had never crossed the law.. had never even spit on the street, we did it becuase that we were drunk and stupid, we come before the court of law and all get life becuase of The Felony Murder Rule.... even though our friend admits that he acted on his own and we had nothing to do with it, we were usaly calm boys and never got drunk other then in some of the weekends....

this means we had nothing to do with it other then robing the old lady yet we get life for killing her:rolleyes:

There is no such thing as the "Felony Murder Rule". Both crimes you described don't mean that everyone gets the same punishment because one person murdered. It all depends on the circumstances of each case, and in both cases you described everyone wouldn't be charged with a capital crime, only the person who did the killing.


And once again the punishment for capital crimes is death, not life in prison.

Lie detector test...just have to demand to be givin one....

Originally posted by RoguePhotonic
Lie detector test...just have to demand to be givin one....

But lie detectors aren't anything near 100% sure.

Originally posted by munik
There is no such thing as the "Felony Murder Rule". Both crimes you described don't mean that everyone gets the same punishment because one person murdered. It all depends on the circumstances of each case, and in both cases you described everyone wouldn't be charged with a capital crime, only the person who did the killing.


And once again the punishment for capital crimes is death, not life in prison.

where are you from? cuase the felony murder rule is only in the US as far i know (the law has been around for aslong there had been a actual law book in the US) and i saw a case that was VERY close to the one i talked about (the old lady one and now that i think about it, it was actuly the same thing ecxept it was diffrent soroundings) it acoured a couple of years ago all the boys that did it got life ecxept one that was waiting near by, he dident even see the crime he got 9 years all the others got life .... so... why are you saying there is no such thing and that all capital crimes are punished with death?
:confused:

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
But lie detectors aren't anything near 100% sure.

But there better than nothing. If you're trying to convince the jury that only you has something to do with it and not your friends, I would take a test to reinforce it. Its better proof than just word of mouth.

Edit: I hope everyone understood that... I'm tired right now. :D

I live in the US. In New York, where there is capital punishment.Originally posted by SupremePain

cuase the felony murder rule is only in the US as far i know (the law has been around for aslong there had been a actual law book in the US)....

The words in bold were done by me for emphasis, the sentence cut short because it's 124 words long!--Munik First you say it's a rule, then you say it's a law, which is it? I said ther is no such "rule", because the law doesn't usually have these such "rules". The law usually deals with laws.

Federal capital crimes are punished with death. In individual states, it depends on wether or not each state has capital punishment. I mentioned this earlier. I keep saying punished by death because that is the accepted punishment for a capital crime. Considering that is what a capital crime is, a crime that is punishable by death. If you commit a capital crime in a state that doesn't have capital punishment, what are you left with? Life with no parole would be an alternative.

The cases you keep describing are vague and lacking any real detail. And they sound grossly unjust. Which leads me to believe either you are omitting the damning details, or they are fabricated.

Regarding the lie detectors, I'm pretty sure that the results will hold water in a court of law. But it is true, they aren't perfect. They just measure heart rate, breathing rate, and the galvanic skin response. All of which should increase with a lie, and stay normal with a truth. But the machine must be calibrated to each individual, and to do this they ask you control questions, obvious truths, such as your name, date or place of birth, etc. So, to foul up the test all you do is make sure the readings during the control questions are skewed.

So how do you do this without telling a lie? Well, heart rate, breathing, and the galvanic skin response all increase with lies, but they also increase with physical stress, fear, pain, etc. So, you induce those feelings, maybe by biting the tongue till you draw blood, or stashing pins inside you shoes, underneath your feet near the toes, so you can prick yourself when needed. A test with abnormal results won't be used against you.

Originally posted by munik
Regarding the lie detectors, I'm pretty sure that the results will hold water in a court of law.

I always assumed that polygraph results were in-admissable in court and usefull only in the investigative phase of a case. They're also legal in many states as a means of hire/fire for employers.

SKinWalker

I dunno. If you think they aren't, then I'm probaly wrong. I knew that they are good enough to be believed as correct, like what you said about jobs and investigations as such. I just figured that if they were believed to be correct then, then the results would be admissible in a court.

But it's purely speculation on my part I guess, I'll trust in your judgement.

What if a group of criminals cover up for each other, ie: You know for a fact (because you can prove it) that one of them committed the crime. In Denmark they all walk with an accomplice charge... I say nail 'em all for the crime, unless they are willing to rat on their mate. You can't have gang members that are more loyal to each other than the State. That's just unacceptable.