Full Version: Life for lending car
NYT Story
Ryan Holle is serving life without parole for lending his car to friends who used it to drive to the commit a burglary at the house of a drug dealer, which went wrong and the dealer's 18-year-old daughter was murdered by being hit repeatedly with a shotgun butt.
I'm not looking to debate the status of the men who went intending to burgle and ended up murdering a young woman.
But, while Holle may be an accomplice, and is certainly due some kind of punishment and (it seems) knew his friends were going on a burglary expedition, life without as an accessory to murder seems excessive.
The law has roots in English common law yet - as the article says, the USA is about the only place left with that heritage (including England) which still maintains this principle, rather than the more intuitively logical one that a person should not be punished for a crime committed by someone else.
Questions for debate:
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
If so, how should it be reformed?
If not, why not?
Ryan Holle is serving life without parole for lending his car to friends who used it to drive to the commit a burglary at the house of a drug dealer, which went wrong and the dealer's 18-year-old daughter was murdered by being hit repeatedly with a shotgun butt.
I'm not looking to debate the status of the men who went intending to burgle and ended up murdering a young woman.
But, while Holle may be an accomplice, and is certainly due some kind of punishment and (it seems) knew his friends were going on a burglary expedition, life without as an accessory to murder seems excessive.
The law has roots in English common law yet - as the article says, the USA is about the only place left with that heritage (including England) which still maintains this principle, rather than the more intuitively logical one that a person should not be punished for a crime committed by someone else.
Questions for debate:
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
If so, how should it be reformed?
If not, why not?
This seems not only to violate common sense, but basic concepts of law.
Link
Isn't this fellow, at most, an "accessory"? Even if he said "Take my car and kill somebody"?
I'm sure that Julian is aware of the notorious case which ended the death penalty in the United Kingdom. From the same link:
Even if Bentley had clearly said "Kill him," I don't see how the law can fairly consider him as guilty as Craig.
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
Yes.
If so, how should it be reformed?
It seems as if proper use of "aiding and abetting" laws would cover situations like this. Again, from the same link:
In the case at hand, the first element is clearly present (a crime was committed); the third element seems to be present (the use of the car enabled the crime to take place); but the second element is questionable. If it can be shown that the second element is present, it would make sense to charge the defendent with aiding and abetting a felony rather than the felony itself.
Link
QUOTE
At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offence keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offence.
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
Isn't this fellow, at most, an "accessory"? Even if he said "Take my car and kill somebody"?
I'm sure that Julian is aware of the notorious case which ended the death penalty in the United Kingdom. From the same link:
QUOTE
One of the most notorious cases of this type was the 1952 case in England involving Derek Bentley, a mentally-challenged man who was in police custody when his sixteen-year-old companion, Christopher Craig, shot and killed a police officer during a botched break-in. Craig was sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, since as a juvenile offender he could not be sentenced to death. He was released after serving ten years, but Bentley was hanged. The incident was dramatized in the film Let Him Have It, which is what Bentley allegedly said to Craig during the incident, it being unclear whether he meant for Craig to shoot the officer, or to surrender the gun. The hanging of Bentley led to public outrage and the eventual abolition of capital punishment in the United Kingdom.
Even if Bentley had clearly said "Kill him," I don't see how the law can fairly consider him as guilty as Craig.
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
Yes.
If so, how should it be reformed?
It seems as if proper use of "aiding and abetting" laws would cover situations like this. Again, from the same link:
QUOTE
Courts often refer to aiding and abetting as an alternate theory of liability rather than a separate crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding and abetting liability is available in all federal criminal prosecutions; however, the availability and extent of civil aiding and abetting liability varies from statute to statute. Where available, aiding and abetting liability generally requires three elements: 1) an underlying violation by a principal; 2) knowledge of that violation and/or the intent to facilitate the violation; and 3) assistance to the principal in the violation.
In the case at hand, the first element is clearly present (a crime was committed); the third element seems to be present (the use of the car enabled the crime to take place); but the second element is questionable. If it can be shown that the second element is present, it would make sense to charge the defendent with aiding and abetting a felony rather than the felony itself.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 11 2007, 06:11 AM) 
It seems as if proper use of "aiding and abetting" laws would cover situations like this. Again, from the same link:
In the case at hand, the first element is clearly present (a crime was committed); the third element seems to be present (the use of the car enabled the crime to take place); but the second element is questionable. If it can be shown that the second element is present, it would make sense to charge the defendent with aiding and abetting a felony rather than the felony itself.
QUOTE
Courts often refer to aiding and abetting as an alternate theory of liability rather than a separate crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding and abetting liability is available in all federal criminal prosecutions; however, the availability and extent of civil aiding and abetting liability varies from statute to statute. Where available, aiding and abetting liability generally requires three elements: 1) an underlying violation by a principal; 2) knowledge of that violation and/or the intent to facilitate the violation; and 3) assistance to the principal in the violation.
In the case at hand, the first element is clearly present (a crime was committed); the third element seems to be present (the use of the car enabled the crime to take place); but the second element is questionable. If it can be shown that the second element is present, it would make sense to charge the defendent with aiding and abetting a felony rather than the felony itself.
If the guy knew that his buddies would be committing armed robbery or burglary (as opposed to unarmed), then this was the correct verdict. It is entirely foreseeable that someone could be killed during an armed burglary. He provided them the means to get to (and from) the burglary scene and thus was an accomplice and not an accessory.
Amlord
He is an accessory. And I would argue he is an accesory to armed robbery only, as he did not intend for them to use his car to kill. I'm pretty sure there has to be intent for there to be murder.
Murder
No intent, no malice, no forethought, not even at the crime scene, yet convicted of murder. And AMLord you think this is correct??
See this happens in history all the time. You have people who seek order, rather than chaos. Put in their quest to be noble, they instead pervert nobility. This prosecutor is scum, because he takes justice and he perverts it. Just like we would say a defense attorney does. Except he worse... cause actually believes he's a good guy in his actions.
QUOTE
If the guy knew that his buddies would be committing armed robbery or burglary (as opposed to unarmed), then this was the correct verdict. It is entirely foreseeable that someone could be killed during an armed burglary. He provided them the means to get to (and from) the burglary scene and thus was an accomplice and not an accessory.
QUOTE
At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offence keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offence.
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice
He is an accessory. And I would argue he is an accesory to armed robbery only, as he did not intend for them to use his car to kill. I'm pretty sure there has to be intent for there to be murder.
Murder
QUOTE
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought.
No intent, no malice, no forethought, not even at the crime scene, yet convicted of murder. And AMLord you think this is correct??
See this happens in history all the time. You have people who seek order, rather than chaos. Put in their quest to be noble, they instead pervert nobility. This prosecutor is scum, because he takes justice and he perverts it. Just like we would say a defense attorney does. Except he worse... cause actually believes he's a good guy in his actions.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 11 2007, 12:18 PM)
No intent, no malice, no forethought, not even at the crime scene, yet convicted of murder. And AMLord you think this is correct??
See this happens in history all the time. You have people who seek order, rather than chaos. Put in their quest to be noble, they instead pervert nobility. This prosecutor is scum, because he takes justice and he perverts it. Just like we would say a defense attorney does. Except he worse... cause actually believes he's a good guy in his actions.
[/color]
See this happens in history all the time. You have people who seek order, rather than chaos. Put in their quest to be noble, they instead pervert nobility. This prosecutor is scum, because he takes justice and he perverts it. Just like we would say a defense attorney does. Except he worse... cause actually believes he's a good guy in his actions.
[/color]
The man lent his car to his buddy knowing that his buddy was going to use it to commit a crime--armed burglary, a felony. He lent his car to his buddy -- I am assuming here -- knowing that his buddy was packing (i.e. armed).
So, recapping, he lent his car to his buddy knowing that he was going to commit armed robbery with it. This makes him an accomplice in the robbery. An accomplice, not an accessory, because he had (and admitted) knowledge that a felony was going to be committed and that his car was going to be used to commit that crime (and transport the safe). He's an accomplice to the armed burglary. When the murder occured (do we doubt that bashing a girl's head in with a shotgun is murder?) he became an accomplice to murder because that crime was committed during the commission of the other felony.
EDIT: Okay, I revise my remarks. Under those guidelines posted he would be an accessory to murder. In Florida, this crime is subject to the death penalty.
1) No. The felony murder rule is perfectly fine.
2) n/a
3) Here's the idiocy of the other side: "the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender." Yeah, and it's as if no one is going to try and defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property from the felonious assault on the same. And so murder is an entirely forseeable consequence of the felony. And so we also find in the article: "A person who has chosen to commit armed robbery, rape or kidnapping has chosen to do something with a strong possibility of causing the death of an innocent person," Mr. Scheidegger said. "That choice makes it morally justified to convict the person of murder when that possibility happens."
Oh, and Julian, for the true absurdity, my state, Hawaii, does not have the felony-murder rule, as noted in the article. However, we do have:
"§706-660.1 Sentence of imprisonment for use of a firearm, semiautomatic firearm, or automatic firearm in a felony. (1) A person convicted of a felony, where the person had a firearm in the person's possession or threatened its use or used the firearm while engaged in the commission of the felony, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not, may in addition to the indeterminate term of imprisonment provided for the grade of offense be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment without possibility of parole or probation the length of which shall be as follows:
(a) For murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree--up to fifteen years;
(
For a class A felony--up to ten years;
© For a class B felony--up to five years; and
(d) For a class C felony--up to three years.
The sentence of imprisonment for a felony involving the use of a firearm as provided in this subsection shall not be subject to the procedure for determining minimum term of imprisonment prescribed under section 706-669; provided further that a person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution as provided in this subsection shall become subject to the parole procedure as prescribed in section 706-670 only upon the expiration of the term of mandatory imprisonment fixed under paragraph (a), (, ©, or (d)."
If there is any distinction between the above and the felony murder rule I've yet to find it. Note that the statute makes the possession of the firearm the offense, and never mind if you ever used it, never mind if you ever threatened to use it, never mind whether it was loaded, and never mind whether it was operable. And so, again, is there any real distinction between the above and the felony murder rule?
And for the inane political correctness run amok, to continue with the relevant Hawaii statute:
"(3) A person convicted of a felony, where the person had a semiautomatic firearm or automatic firearm in the person's possession or used or threatened its use while engaged in the commission of the felony, whether the semiautomatic firearm or automatic firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not, shall in addition to the indeterminate term of imprisonment provided for the grade of offense be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment without possibility of parole or probation the length of which shall be as follows:
(a) For murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree--twenty years;
( For a class A felony--fifteen years;
© For a class B felony--ten years; and
(d) For a class C felony--five years."
So it isn't just guns we're against, as we hate some guns more than some other guns. And if the felony murder rule does not deter, as some claim, please no one tell me that the distinction made here between your more regular firearm and the semiautomatic and automatic firearm[s] serves some greater deterrent interest. The other irony here is that the murder is probably more likely without the firearm, since without the firearm the one being victimized might erroneously conclude that he or she has a better chance of physically resisting the crime and so we have that scuffle that ends in the death of the victim. Which would likely not be the case if one were facing down the barrel of a firearm. And so there can be no mistake, the very first line of the commentary to the above section reports: "Designed to deter the use of firearms in the commission of offenses..." Apparently, some think that it will work for firearms but not for felony murder. And for more absurdity, the felony murder rule apparently can't and doesn't deter, but that harsh punishment for possession of an automatic weapon, well, as stated in the same commentary: "Harsh sentences keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals." Of course, I could say that harsh sentences for felony murder keep humans from committing felonies and murder, but we can't have that now can we?
2) n/a
3) Here's the idiocy of the other side: "the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender." Yeah, and it's as if no one is going to try and defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property from the felonious assault on the same. And so murder is an entirely forseeable consequence of the felony. And so we also find in the article: "A person who has chosen to commit armed robbery, rape or kidnapping has chosen to do something with a strong possibility of causing the death of an innocent person," Mr. Scheidegger said. "That choice makes it morally justified to convict the person of murder when that possibility happens."
Oh, and Julian, for the true absurdity, my state, Hawaii, does not have the felony-murder rule, as noted in the article. However, we do have:
"§706-660.1 Sentence of imprisonment for use of a firearm, semiautomatic firearm, or automatic firearm in a felony. (1) A person convicted of a felony, where the person had a firearm in the person's possession or threatened its use or used the firearm while engaged in the commission of the felony, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not, may in addition to the indeterminate term of imprisonment provided for the grade of offense be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment without possibility of parole or probation the length of which shall be as follows:
(a) For murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree--up to fifteen years;
(
For a class A felony--up to ten years;© For a class B felony--up to five years; and
(d) For a class C felony--up to three years.
The sentence of imprisonment for a felony involving the use of a firearm as provided in this subsection shall not be subject to the procedure for determining minimum term of imprisonment prescribed under section 706-669; provided further that a person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution as provided in this subsection shall become subject to the parole procedure as prescribed in section 706-670 only upon the expiration of the term of mandatory imprisonment fixed under paragraph (a), (
, ©, or (d)."If there is any distinction between the above and the felony murder rule I've yet to find it. Note that the statute makes the possession of the firearm the offense, and never mind if you ever used it, never mind if you ever threatened to use it, never mind whether it was loaded, and never mind whether it was operable. And so, again, is there any real distinction between the above and the felony murder rule?
And for the inane political correctness run amok, to continue with the relevant Hawaii statute:
"(3) A person convicted of a felony, where the person had a semiautomatic firearm or automatic firearm in the person's possession or used or threatened its use while engaged in the commission of the felony, whether the semiautomatic firearm or automatic firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not, shall in addition to the indeterminate term of imprisonment provided for the grade of offense be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment without possibility of parole or probation the length of which shall be as follows:
(a) For murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree--twenty years;
(
For a class A felony--fifteen years;© For a class B felony--ten years; and
(d) For a class C felony--five years."
So it isn't just guns we're against, as we hate some guns more than some other guns. And if the felony murder rule does not deter, as some claim, please no one tell me that the distinction made here between your more regular firearm and the semiautomatic and automatic firearm[s] serves some greater deterrent interest. The other irony here is that the murder is probably more likely without the firearm, since without the firearm the one being victimized might erroneously conclude that he or she has a better chance of physically resisting the crime and so we have that scuffle that ends in the death of the victim. Which would likely not be the case if one were facing down the barrel of a firearm. And so there can be no mistake, the very first line of the commentary to the above section reports: "Designed to deter the use of firearms in the commission of offenses..." Apparently, some think that it will work for firearms but not for felony murder. And for more absurdity, the felony murder rule apparently can't and doesn't deter, but that harsh punishment for possession of an automatic weapon, well, as stated in the same commentary: "Harsh sentences keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals." Of course, I could say that harsh sentences for felony murder keep humans from committing felonies and murder, but we can't have that now can we?
QUOTE(Julian @ Dec 4 2007, 10:49 AM)
NYT Story
Ryan Holle is serving life without parole for lending his car to friends who used it to drive to the commit a burglary at the house of a drug dealer, which went wrong and the dealer's 18-year-old daughter was murdered by being hit repeatedly with a shotgun butt.
I'm not looking to debate the status of the men who went intending to burgle and ended up murdering a young woman.
But, while Holle may be an accomplice, and is certainly due some kind of punishment and (it seems) knew his friends were going on a burglary expedition, life without as an accessory to murder seems excessive.
The law has roots in English common law yet - as the article says, the USA is about the only place left with that heritage (including England) which still maintains this principle, rather than the more intuitively logical one that a person should not be punished for a crime committed by someone else.
Questions for debate:
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
If so, how should it be reformed?
If not, why not?
Ryan Holle is serving life without parole for lending his car to friends who used it to drive to the commit a burglary at the house of a drug dealer, which went wrong and the dealer's 18-year-old daughter was murdered by being hit repeatedly with a shotgun butt.
I'm not looking to debate the status of the men who went intending to burgle and ended up murdering a young woman.
But, while Holle may be an accomplice, and is certainly due some kind of punishment and (it seems) knew his friends were going on a burglary expedition, life without as an accessory to murder seems excessive.
The law has roots in English common law yet - as the article says, the USA is about the only place left with that heritage (including England) which still maintains this principle, rather than the more intuitively logical one that a person should not be punished for a crime committed by someone else.
Questions for debate:
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
If so, how should it be reformed?
If not, why not?
What in the world am I missing here? We don't have enough people in prison? It appears from reading the posts so far that many ADers think that Ryan Holle belongs in prison. Why is his sentence harsher than those of the actual perpetrators? I can't believe that someone or some organization has not stood up for Holle and gotten on the legislature "bandwagon" to get the law changed.
"No intent, no malice, no forethought, not even at the crime scene, yet convicted of murder. And AMLord you think this is correct??" AMEN!
QUOTE
So, recapping, he lent his car to his buddy knowing that he was going to commit armed robbery with it. This makes him an accomplice in the robbery. An accomplice, not an accessory, because he had (and admitted) knowledge that a felony was going to be committed and that his car was going to be used to commit that crime (and transport the safe).
See what i mean by perverting justice... He's an accomplice because he knows his freinds are going to rob a house. So what would make him an accessory in your opinion?? Not knowing it was going to happen?!?! Would you advocate to send some one to prison for NOT knowing a crime was going to happen, simply because their car was used.
He not at the scene, he is not an accomplice. Perverted prosecutor have just been able to further and further perverse the law. Now 13 year olds are charged as adults, and people are convicted murderers for lending out their cars... it would be sad if it wasn't so funny, or vice versa...
I never said that I agreed with the outcome of this case, only that it fits within the legal guidelines of the state of Florida.
The guy admitted (stupidly, perhaps) that he knew his friends were going to rob the house that they were at previously that night. It is a judgement call whether or not that constitutes knowledge or malice.
There is a long-standing legal principle that the crimes committed as a result of a felony are tacked on. If the guy is an accessory to the armed robbery/burglary then he is also an accessory to the murder.
For what it's worth, the actual perps got life without parole. He just got life (which does seem to be excessively harsh to me). I wasn't on the jury (and I'm betting nobody debating here was either...) so I cannot make the call about how involved he was and whether or not he deserved this harsh sentence.
The guy admitted (stupidly, perhaps) that he knew his friends were going to rob the house that they were at previously that night. It is a judgement call whether or not that constitutes knowledge or malice.
There is a long-standing legal principle that the crimes committed as a result of a felony are tacked on. If the guy is an accessory to the armed robbery/burglary then he is also an accessory to the murder.
For what it's worth, the actual perps got life without parole. He just got life (which does seem to be excessively harsh to me). I wasn't on the jury (and I'm betting nobody debating here was either...) so I cannot make the call about how involved he was and whether or not he deserved this harsh sentence.
QUOTE(Droop224)
No intent, no malice, no forethought, not even at the crime scene, yet convicted of murder. And AMLord you think this is correct??
Do you think this person is innocent here? I would argue that there clearly was intent (he absolutely intended to lend them the car to commit crime), he did so in complete forethought, and he was essentially at the crime scene, as his car was used exactly as he intended it to be.
Keep in mind:
QUOTE
Ryan Holle is serving life without parole for lending his car to friends who used it to drive to the commit a burglary at the house of a drug dealer, which went wrong and the dealer's 18-year-old daughter was murdered by being hit repeatedly with a shotgun butt.
You think Mr. Holle was completely unaware of the character of the people he lent his car to? I sincerely doubt it. He knew what kind of people these were, he knew what it was they were going to do, and he was completely aware that something like this could quite easily be the result. I completely fail to see where he should engender our sympathy.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Dec 12 2007, 10:46 AM)
You think Mr. Holle was completely unaware of the character of the people he lent his car to? I sincerely doubt it. He knew what kind of people these were, he knew what it was they were going to do, and he was completely aware that something like this could quite easily be the result. I completely fail to see where he should engender our sympathy.
Hobbes... I think your argument will eternally fall on deaf ears.
The problem with liberal thought on crime is that somehow there should be some inherent sliding scale that never holds people accountable.
If I gave my car to a drunk, knowing full well that he/she was plastered drunk, and the person runs someone over. What is my culpability?
I'm really sick of hearing things like this:
QUOTE
See what i mean by perverting justice... He's an accomplice because he knows his freinds are going to rob a house. So what would make him an accessory in your opinion?? Not knowing it was going to happen?!?! Would you advocate to send some one to prison for NOT knowing a crime was going to happen, simply because their car was used.
Droop- the person ADMITTED he knew that he was loaning his car for a robbery.
Here's the quote from the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04fel...;pagewanted=all
QUOTE
Mr. Holle, who had given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted of first-degree murder.
I'm not sure what else needs to be said.
Maybe there should be some dispensation upon sentencing, and maybe this dude should have opportunity for parole earlier ... but he needs to be made an example.
Think of this, if I drive a car to a bank robbery and someone is shot... how should I be held accountable?
Maybe my drunk driver example is better. If Mr. Holle had said "you know what?, you can't drive my car"... would that girl still be alive?
QUICK NOTE TO ADD...
Did Mr. Holle call the police once he knew? Did he turn in his friends and cooperate? Seriously. Would this have been as bad had he called 911 upon return saying "they said they were going for food, but instead they robbed someone and a kid was killed!!!"....
Hobbes
Innocent of murder... Yes of course he is. Did he lend his car to the guy who committed the murder? No. Did the guy leaving even have the gun used to kill the victim. No.
He doesn't need our sympathy, he just need justice.
But it's easy to tell you how ridiculous the prosecution's logic is. In fact it is even ridiculous logic to the prosecution and yours as well.
(from same article)
Do you know what possession of a pound of marijuana is Hobbes, AMLord, the prosecution if you are reading?? That's a felony.
Let's take another look at that prosecution reasoning.
Let's be fair and keep that logic and change "car" to "safe with marijuana."
"No safe with marijuana, no crime,” said the Droop224. “No safe with marijuana, no consequences. No safe with marijuana, no murder"
I don't see how anyone can reasonably discredit this logic. It's a fact that they went for a safe. It's a fact the safe had felony amounts of marijuana in it. It's a fact they did not choose to rob this person randomly, but because this person was a known drug dealer.
If the prosecution believes its own logic the mother should have been charged with felony murder as well. Is it her fault her daughter got murdered?? No.. but... hey:
Hobbes reasoning now
(hobbes) would argue that there clearly was intent (s)he absolutely intended to have the drugs to commit crime), she did so in complete forethought, and she was essentially at the crime scene, as the safe with marijuana was what therobbers intended to take.
more Hobbes reasoning
You think Mrs. Snyder was completely unaware of the character of the people she dealt drugs to? I sincerely doubt it. She knew what kind of people these were, she knew what it was they were going to do, and she was completely aware that something like this could quite easily be the result. I completely fail to see where she should engender our sympathy.
I underline what I changed. Look at Hobbes writing to see how very little I had to change.
How many minds are racing to pick out differences. Don't bother... I already see the difference between the mother having drugs (felony) and the guy lending a car to commit a felony. But the difference in the circumstance does not change the fact the logic used to lock Mr. Holle away is exactly the same when applied to the mother of Jessica Snyder.
No drug safe, no robbery, no murder.
A raise of hands as to who thinks it would be idiotic to charge the mother with felony murder of her own daughter...
QUOTE
Do you think this person is innocent here? I would argue that there clearly was intent (he absolutely intended to lend them the car to commit crime), he did so in complete forethought, and he was essentially at the crime scene, as his car was used exactly as he intended it to be.
Innocent of murder... Yes of course he is. Did he lend his car to the guy who committed the murder? No. Did the guy leaving even have the gun used to kill the victim. No.
QUOTE
You think Mr. Holle was completely unaware of the character of the people he lent his car to? I sincerely doubt it. He knew what kind of people these were, he knew what it was they were going to do, and he was completely aware that something like this could quite easily be the result. I completely fail to see where he should engender our sympathy.
He doesn't need our sympathy, he just need justice.
But it's easy to tell you how ridiculous the prosecution's logic is. In fact it is even ridiculous logic to the prosecution and yours as well.
QUOTE
The safe had belonged to Christine Snyder(the mother). The police found a pound of marijuana in it, and, after her daughter’s funeral, she was sentenced to three years in prison for possessing it.
(from same article)
Do you know what possession of a pound of marijuana is Hobbes, AMLord, the prosecution if you are reading?? That's a felony.
QUOTE
The friend used the car to drive three men to the Pensacola home of a marijuana dealer, aiming to steal a safe. The burglary turned violent, and one of the men killed the dealer’s 18-year-old daughter by beating her head in with a shotgun he found in the home.
Let's take another look at that prosecution reasoning.
QUOTE
A prosecutor explained the theory to the jury at Mr. Holle’s trial in Pensacola in 2004. “No car, no crime,” said the prosecutor, David Rimmer. “No car, no consequences. No car, no murder.”
Let's be fair and keep that logic and change "car" to "safe with marijuana."
"No safe with marijuana, no crime,” said the Droop224. “No safe with marijuana, no consequences. No safe with marijuana, no murder"
I don't see how anyone can reasonably discredit this logic. It's a fact that they went for a safe. It's a fact the safe had felony amounts of marijuana in it. It's a fact they did not choose to rob this person randomly, but because this person was a known drug dealer.
If the prosecution believes its own logic the mother should have been charged with felony murder as well. Is it her fault her daughter got murdered?? No.. but... hey:
Hobbes reasoning now
(hobbes) would argue that there clearly was intent (s)he absolutely intended to have the drugs to commit crime), she did so in complete forethought, and she was essentially at the crime scene, as the safe with marijuana was what therobbers intended to take.
more Hobbes reasoning
You think Mrs. Snyder was completely unaware of the character of the people she dealt drugs to? I sincerely doubt it. She knew what kind of people these were, she knew what it was they were going to do, and she was completely aware that something like this could quite easily be the result. I completely fail to see where she should engender our sympathy.
I underline what I changed. Look at Hobbes writing to see how very little I had to change.
How many minds are racing to pick out differences. Don't bother... I already see the difference between the mother having drugs (felony) and the guy lending a car to commit a felony. But the difference in the circumstance does not change the fact the logic used to lock Mr. Holle away is exactly the same when applied to the mother of Jessica Snyder.
No drug safe, no robbery, no murder.
A raise of hands as to who thinks it would be idiotic to charge the mother with felony murder of her own daughter...
Yes, you're right. How silly of me. We should clearly provide Mr. Snyder with a medal, and probably a stipend. After all, the poor guy lost his friends and his car, and then all this bad press associated with the incident as well. Maybe $1 million should get him started off again on the right foot? I mean, sure, he lent his car for the burglary, but he never intended for anyone to get killed. The poor guy must be positively distraught.
Or, and this is just a thought here...maybe we should discourage people from involving themselves with this sort of thing?
Or, and this is just a thought here...maybe we should discourage people from involving themselves with this sort of thing?
QUOTE
Yes, you're right. How silly of me. We should clearly provide Mr. Snyder with a medal, and probably a stipend. After all, the poor guy lost his friends and his car, and then all this bad press associated with the incident as well. Maybe $1 million should get him started off again on the right foot? I mean, sure, he lent his car for the burglary, but he never intended for anyone to get killed. The poor guy must be positively distraught.
Come on Hobbes... you're a better debater than this
QUOTE
Or, and this is just a thought here...maybe we should discourage people from involving themselves with this sort of thing?
Even more logic we can apply to the mother, right?? Why not charge her for MURDER of her own daughter, so we can discourage possesion of drugs by desparate housewives?? The fact that she had nothing to do with the actual murder... well lets not let little speed bumps of intentions and culpibility to a specific crime get in our way when making examples of people.
You guy really veiw justice this way??
QUOTE
I'm really sick of hearing things like this:
Droop- the person ADMITTED he knew that he was loaning his car for a robbery.
QUOTE
QUOTESee what i mean by perverting justice... He's an accomplice because he knows his freinds are going to rob a house. So what would make him an accessory in your opinion?? Not knowing it was going to happen?!?! Would you advocate to send some one to prison for NOT knowing a crime was going to happen, simply because their car was used.
Droop- the person ADMITTED he knew that he was loaning his car for a robbery.
Sick, but not sick of putting justice aside so that you can make examples of people.
First, he also admits that he didn't even take hs freind seriously, did you read that part. He admits his freind says I'm going to go rob the neighborhood drug dealer. If that makes him an accessory to that robbery... so be it. But they charged a man who had nothing to do with a murder, with a murder, because he freinds siad let me borrow your car, i'm gonna go rob. You can't even believe the guy even thought his freind was serious.QUOTE
Think of this, if I drive a car to a bank robbery and someone is shot... how should I be held accountable?
Accomplice to a robbery. What is so difficult about charging people for the crimes they commit? How is it just to to charge someone with a crime they had nothing to do with, a crime they could not have prevented because they had no say in its perpetration? There is nothing unjust or wrong for punishing people for ONLY the crimes they actually commited.
You go find the definition of murder... if your actions do not fit that definition, it can NEVER be just if someone punishes you for murder. Even if you could have possibly prevented it.
QUOTE
Hobbes... I think your argument will eternally fall on deaf ears.
The problem with liberal thought on crime is that somehow there should be some inherent sliding scale that never holds people accountable.
The problem with liberal thought on crime is that somehow there should be some inherent sliding scale that never holds people accountable.
So liberals want to hold people accountable for the crimes they commit... which to you translates to "never hold accountable"... and you as a conservative want to imprison people for crimes they don't commit... which means you want to hold people accountable for their crimes and the next persons crimes, as well... and your on the right side?? wow!! Do you all know what pervert means??
You think it is right to put someone in jail for murder who did not commit murder.
And you actually think it is right.
A prosecutor explained the theory to the jury at Mr. Holle's trial in Pensacola in 2004. "No car, no crime," said the prosecutor, David Rimmer. "No car, no consequences. No car, no murder."
I think this is why some of you support treating accomplices as actual murderers. You need to suspend reality and accept the gift of prescience to decide no burglary and no murder would have occurred had Holle not given his friends the keys to the car. The prosecutor can't divine how determined Holle's friends were at the time they decided to burglarize a drug dealer but he doesn't need to. He just has to sell the doctrine to the jury.
Treating accomplices as murderers throws a wrench in the death-penalty-as-deterrent argument, too. 80 people have been sentenced to death for participating in murder-related felonies although they didn't commit murder. This isn't about justice and it certainly isn't about making criminals pay for their crimes. It's about making you, the would-be victim, feel safe, and victim's rights claims makers like the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation are here to make sure you think you're safer if you accept their social constructions of crime.
I think this is why some of you support treating accomplices as actual murderers. You need to suspend reality and accept the gift of prescience to decide no burglary and no murder would have occurred had Holle not given his friends the keys to the car. The prosecutor can't divine how determined Holle's friends were at the time they decided to burglarize a drug dealer but he doesn't need to. He just has to sell the doctrine to the jury.
Treating accomplices as murderers throws a wrench in the death-penalty-as-deterrent argument, too. 80 people have been sentenced to death for participating in murder-related felonies although they didn't commit murder. This isn't about justice and it certainly isn't about making criminals pay for their crimes. It's about making you, the would-be victim, feel safe, and victim's rights claims makers like the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation are here to make sure you think you're safer if you accept their social constructions of crime.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 13 2007, 12:03 PM)
You guy really veiw justice this way??
I suspect we are talking around each other. I never said I thought that charging this person with murder was appropriate--merely that he clearly was involved and should be punished. Bases on responses I had seen, I asked whether people really thought Holle was innocent here, and seemed to receive responses that he was. Not just innocent of murder, but just plain innocent. That is what I took issue with.
I think where we're really at is that we both (all?) think he's guilty of something and should be punished. I agree that murder here is probably a reach, and goes down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down (what about Mr. Holle's friends, who knew Mr. Holle lent his car, yet did nothing about it, for example). It would seem from this thread that you wouldn't have a problem with that charge being accomplice to murder. Neither would I.
QUOTE
I suspect we are talking around each other. I never said I thought that charging this person with murder was appropriate--merely that he clearly was involved and should be punished. Bases on responses I had seen, I asked whether people really thought Holle was innocent here, and seemed to receive responses that he was. Not just innocent of murder, but just plain innocent. That is what I took issue with.
I think where we're really at is that we both (all?) think he's guilty of something and should be punished. I agree that murder here is probably a reach, and goes down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down (what about Mr. Holle's friends, who knew Mr. Holle lent his car, yet did nothing about it, for example). It would seem from this thread that you wouldn't have a problem with that charge being accomplice to murder. Neither would I.
I think where we're really at is that we both (all?) think he's guilty of something and should be punished. I agree that murder here is probably a reach, and goes down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down (what about Mr. Holle's friends, who knew Mr. Holle lent his car, yet did nothing about it, for example). It would seem from this thread that you wouldn't have a problem with that charge being accomplice to murder. Neither would I.
Did you mean "accomplice to robbery"?? I do have a problem with him being an accomplice to murder, I actually have a problem with him being charged as an accomplice to anything.
The most he should be charged with is an accessory to a crime. He had knowledge that they planned to commit a crime, that makes him an accessory. There was no evidence he orchestrated or was part of the group that did the robbery so he falls short of accomplice.
Look, kind of like lesly alluded to... Prosecution has been able to do the most unjust acts under the guise of keeping us "safe." They overload charges, and they charge people with crimes they did not commit so that they are overwhelmed to the point that instead of being able to have justice, a charged person is compelled to plea out. And we're on this slippery slope, right now.
WE can see it here. accessories to a crime become accomplices, which then become accomplices to a crime they had no knowledge of, which then deserve the same punishment as the person who commited the actual crime.
It's anti-justice.... and for some reason it doesn't surprise me that conservatives are more likely to be gung-ho on it.
Is the US law on felony accomplices that says they are subject to the same severity of punishment as the people who actually commit the violent crime overude for reform?
Well, this case doesn't involve US Federal law which holds accessories accountable as principals. This involves Florida state law which also holds accessories accountable as principals:
As this applies to felony murder, this makes Holle guilty of felony murder in the first degree.
If Holle didn't know a crime was going to be committed, that would be one thing. He did. He also knew that they planned to possibly "knock out" Jessica Snyder. The fact that he knew they were going to use his car to commit a robbery and knew they might harm Jessica Snyder and still aided and abetted them in these acts makes him responsible for these acts and because Jessica Snyder ended up being murdered, he's responsible for that as well. It's not as though he didn't know that she specifically might get hurt.
What if he had openly agreed with it? What if they told him they were going to murder someone?
In my opinion, you aren't responsible if you didn't know... or if they told you and you thought they were joking... the minute it turned out that they weren't you'd better report it.
Upon further reading, I've changed my opinion. I think he should be charged with murder. He knew a felony was going to be committed, he knew specifically that, in the course of the felony, Jessica Snyder might be assaulted... he was told they might have to knock her out.
According to the US Supreme Court in Enmund v. Florida, an accessory or accomplice to felony murder can't be given the death penalty unless they were directly involved in the killing. They can be given life imprisonment.
Well, this case doesn't involve US Federal law which holds accessories accountable as principals. This involves Florida state law which also holds accessories accountable as principals:
QUOTE
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/777.011.html
Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 777 PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY
777.011 Principal in first degree.--Whoever commits any criminal offense against the state, whether felony or misdemeanor, or aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures such offense to be committed, and such offense is committed or is attempted to be committed, is a principal in the first degree and may be charged, convicted, and punished as such, whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present at the commission of such offense.
Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 777 PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY
777.011 Principal in first degree.--Whoever commits any criminal offense against the state, whether felony or misdemeanor, or aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures such offense to be committed, and such offense is committed or is attempted to be committed, is a principal in the first degree and may be charged, convicted, and punished as such, whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present at the commission of such offense.
As this applies to felony murder, this makes Holle guilty of felony murder in the first degree.
If Holle didn't know a crime was going to be committed, that would be one thing. He did. He also knew that they planned to possibly "knock out" Jessica Snyder. The fact that he knew they were going to use his car to commit a robbery and knew they might harm Jessica Snyder and still aided and abetted them in these acts makes him responsible for these acts and because Jessica Snyder ended up being murdered, he's responsible for that as well. It's not as though he didn't know that she specifically might get hurt.
What if he had openly agreed with it? What if they told him they were going to murder someone?
In my opinion, you aren't responsible if you didn't know... or if they told you and you thought they were joking... the minute it turned out that they weren't you'd better report it.
Upon further reading, I've changed my opinion. I think he should be charged with murder. He knew a felony was going to be committed, he knew specifically that, in the course of the felony, Jessica Snyder might be assaulted... he was told they might have to knock her out.
QUOTE(Amlord)
In Florida, this crime is subject to the death penalty.
According to the US Supreme Court in Enmund v. Florida, an accessory or accomplice to felony murder can't be given the death penalty unless they were directly involved in the killing. They can be given life imprisonment.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.