Petition: Eliminate Florida's felony murder rule.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Another from Florida, I remember seeing this on TYT.

A Florida woman has been sentenced to 20 years behind bars for firing a gun into the ceiling of her home in front of her husband and their two young children.

Florida’s harsh 10-20-Life statutes give harsh punishments for all gun crimes. For pulling a gun out during a crime, the sentence is ten years.
For firing the gun, a mandatory 20-year sentence is issued.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...fails.html

---

Agreed, that's an example of a measure taken to curb and control gun-related crimes which not only fails to curb or control them, but in the process leads to ridiculous convictions and sentences.

Yes, and it's a stupid way to set up a law (which is what the petition is about). People should only be held responsible for the crimes they commit. There is a reason why crimes like burglary have lower sentences that crimes like murder. Even an accomplice to a murder should not get the same sentence as the person who actually committed the murder, unless it can be proved that the accomplice had the same intent.

That's how it is in the UK, and it's a fairer system IMO.

I completely agree. However, removing the felony murder doctrine will not prevent this sort of thing, other laws involving accomplices would have to be altered or removed. Those laws are not, in all or even the majority of cases, bad laws. That's actually one of the reasons I like your system btw (as I'm reading up on it) it allows leeway and consideration, rather than drawing the broad brush, so-to-speak.

Sure, but there are also people who honestly didn't know anything about it. You don't know if he's telling the truth, and neither do I, but the evidence seems to suggest that he was at home, sleeping off a hangover. In that state of mind, whether he knew about the burglary or not is inconsequential; he could have easily thought his friends were joking around, or even that he was dreaming it.

Most likely, yeah, but what counts is whether or not the jury concluded that he had no knowledge of the crime. Again, a hungover state of mind is not an effective defense...ever take a look at just how many crimes are committed under the influence? Whether he knew about the burglary or not is not inconsequential Tibs...if he knowingly aided in the commission of a crime that culminated in homocide he is an accomplice -to homicide-.

Not according to his testimony.

Yes, because we all know that personal testimony (and especially so in defense of murder charges) is the best arbitrator of truth.....Look, the jury convicted him. I know it sounds callous, but had there been knock-down drag out evidence that he did know, and the jury acquitted him...I'd be defending his acquittal against those who characterized it as a miscarriage of justice.

Wow. That's a pretty appalling strawman of my position. I'm not saying we should charge people based on what might have happened;

Hyperbole Tibs...I'm not actually arguing against your opinion here, I also think it was a shitty application of law. I'm not trying to straw man your position, I;m attempting to explain to you why -what could have happened- is not really relevant in a charge regarding -what did happen-. Though if I were the guys defender, I'd probably make the same argument as you just did.

Lets cast ourselves in the roles Tibs, you as defense counsel, I'm representing the state.

Def-"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the perpetrators of this crime could have borrowed anyones car, or even taken the bus"

Pros-"They could have.....but in this case...they did not. We are not here to deliberate upon what could have happened, but to ensure that justice is carried out for what did."

I'm calling to attention the bad application of logic used by the prosecutor, which was:

"No car, no crime."

This is clearly illogical. It simply does not follow that if Mr Holle had not lent his car, the crime would not have been committed; that was my point. Like I said before, if Mr Holle had said "no", they could have found another car

But they didn't Tibs, this crime did involve his car, if some other car was involved it would be some other crime, some other case (with regards to the defendant). Hehehe, time for a joke. Trials are not about the application of logic, but the application of law.

(whether they borrowed it from someone else or stole it) to go and commit the burglary in. Heck, they could have taken public transport, or walked as well.

Absolutely, but they did not, and again, our system is not set up so that -what might have happened- how things -might have gone down- is an issue in very many instances. What is important is what -did- happen. What -did- go down. It's not an issue of what is logically possible Tibs.

The prosecutor might as well have thrown the murderer's mother in jail as well, saying "No conception, no crime"...it's exactly the same argument.

Really? lol...okay....

I never said accomplices shouldn't be charged, but it's fucking stupid to charge them for the same crime that someone else did. Punishments should be proportional to the crime committed. If Holle did lend his car with the knowledge that it would be involved in a burglary, then he should have been convicted based on his involvement in the burglary (and he should have received a far lighter sentence that anyone in the actual burglary itself).

I agree. However....since you seem to be fond of what might have happened...had the item lent been a gun, the burglary leading to homocide..would we be looking at a different situation, possibly with more severe sentencing? Would you feel that the accomplice was an accomplice only to burglary and not to murder? Does it matter what tool a person lent to commit a crime?

These are people's lives we're talking about. People make mistakes, they have bad friends. Lending your car to a thief is a big mistake, but it certainly shouldn't cost you your whole life, especially with the amount of people the USA throws in jail anyway.

Agreed, and again I'm glad they didn't kill this kid....they could have ( I checked again to see if the laws have changed..they haven't...sadface).

---

The other two examples on that petition, btw, leave me scratching my fucking head (as I've mentioned). Like I said (just in case it got lost in the noise), I'm all for this petition, but I don't think that the case you and I have been discussing is a very good example of why the doctrine should be repealed. This particular case seems to be precisely the scenario that the doctrine was engineering to address.