Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 16:53:25 GMT -6
I get the impression that the "Law of parties" is considered unfair by some. Why is that may I ask. We have a similar law here in Australia and no one complains.
Is the reason why some sentenced to death for armed robbery/homicide consider themselves innocent because they were not the shooter or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Mar 10, 2010 20:25:00 GMT -6
The felony murder rule is a very old part of English Common Law. Only whiners and thug-coddlers think it's unfair. The "law of parties" simply extends that rule to death penalty cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 10, 2010 21:25:38 GMT -6
I think it is an excellent law. Unfortunately, and I could be wrong, it is not one which is shared by all US DP states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2010 21:49:19 GMT -6
I think it is an excellent law. Unfortunately, and I could be wrong, it is not one which is shared by all US DP states. I think the phrase we use in Australia is Joint Enterprise.... I am a little gobsmacked that an accomplice non shooter in an armed robbery that resulted in a murder describes themselves as being innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 10, 2010 22:21:29 GMT -6
I am a little gobsmacked that an accomplice non shooter in an armed robbery that resulted in a murder describes themselves as being innocent. To many of our anti brethren, every person convicted of murder is innocent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2010 1:43:51 GMT -6
I am a little gobsmacked that an accomplice non shooter in an armed robbery that resulted in a murder describes themselves as being innocent. To many of our anti brethren, every person convicted of murder is innocent. I saw an example of anti thinking on DR inmate blog. His complaint was likely that he got Death and the Shooter got life. He thinks he should have got life too. However there are comments to the effect... "Hold on to Hope, one day you will be proven innocent" |
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Mar 11, 2010 16:36:21 GMT -6
Unfortunately, and I could be wrong, it is not one which is shared by all US DP states. You are correct. I know that in Maryland, except for in murder for hire cases, only the triggerman (I believe the legal term is "principal in the first degree") is eligible for the DP. An accomplice can be convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule and I'm about 90% sure they're still eligible for life w/o parole, but only the shooter can be executed. The law is similar in Virginia although they are working on changing that. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 11, 2010 17:33:20 GMT -6
You are correct. I know that in Maryland, except for in murder for hire cases, only the triggerman (I believe the legal term is "principal in the first degree") is eligible for the DP. An accomplice can be convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule and I'm about 90% sure they're still eligible for life w/o parole, but only the shooter can be executed. The law is similar in Virginia although they are working on changing that. Thanks. Again I could be wrong, but I think the only person executed in the US who wasn't a "principal in the first degree" was in Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Mar 11, 2010 20:51:35 GMT -6
I think that Florida and Alabama & maybe a couple of other Southern states allow participants who aren't the triggermen to be sentenced to death, but I'm really uncertain about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 12, 2010 10:33:16 GMT -6
the only person executed in the US who wasn't a "principal in the first degree" was in Texas. Charles Manson is only alive now because the California Supreme Court spared his life. As you recall, he didn't kill anyone. |
|
