Thursday, December 6, 2007

Felony Murder

This New York Times article discusses the felony murder rule, using the case of Ryan Holle, now serving life in prison, as a jumping-off point. As one might expect, there are conflicting interpretations of the facts, but the basic story is this: Holle was out partying with some friends one night, when, at least somewhat intoxicated, he loaned his car to a friend. His friend and three other individuals drove over to the home of a local marijuana dealer with the intent of robbing it. Which they did. In addition, they bludgeoned to death the dealer's 18-year-old daughter, Jessica Snyder, with a shotgun they found at the residence.

All four were convicted of murder, as was Holle, under the felony murder doctrine, which the New York Times describes as "a distinctively American legal doctrine that makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like burglaries, rapes and robberies." This rule "generally broadens murder liability for participants in violent felonies in two ways. An unintended killing during a felony is considered murder under the rule. So is, as Mr. Holle learned, a killing by an accomplice."

The New York Times notes that the Brits -- whose common law brought us the rule -- abolished the doctrine in the late fifties, while India and other common law countries have done so as well, including our Canadian neighbors. The argument against the rule, generally, is that it is disproportionate, because the defendant is being held responsible for something he didn't personally do. The counter to that is that all participants in a felony share blame for the foreseeable consequences.

Holle, according to the Times article, "had given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary." Indeed, he also testified that "he had been told it might be necessary to 'knock out' Jessica Snyder." So he knew both that a robbery was planned and that violence might well be necessary. Now Holle claims he didn't actually believe them -- he thought that the talk of the robbery was a joke. If true that might well be exculpatory, but, based on the sketchy account in the article, it sounds like the jury didn't believe him.

The problem with The New York Times article is that it conflates two distinct issues. The first issue is Holle's case, and the second issue is the felony murder rule, in general. The article tries to cast doubt on on Holle's culpability, and thereby to undermine the rule, in general. But that doesn't necessarily follow. Even if you believe that the evidence wasn't sufficient in his case, or that he didn't do enough to help that he ought to found guilty, you can still believe in the rule's application, in general. That said, Adam Liptak, the author of the article, deserves credit for fairly presenting the facts that would tend to show Holle did know of the car's intended use and is therefore at least arguably culpable.

The same cannot be said of all the bloggers commmenting on the article. The dishonesty is particularly apparent at TAPPED, where Brad Plumer says:

Do I have this right? Florida courts have long rejected the argument that gun wholesalers are at all responsible for any murders committed with the weapons they sell. But, as The New York Times reports today, if a groggy 20-year-old in Florida lends some friends his car one morning, and they end up killing someone, he can be convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole?


[Correction: he isn't at TAPPED. See update below.] Conveniently left out is that Holle's pals didn't just "end up killing someone," as if by accident. Nor did Holle innocently lend some friends his car. Rather, he lent it to them after being told that they were going to use it for a burglary.

Scott Lemieux is equally dishonest, stating that "Via Brad Plumer, Adam Liptak discusses the case of a 20-year-old in Florida serving life without parole for lending some friends his car. " Sure, that's true enough -- but utterly misleading, as it leaves out the fact that he was told it was going to be used in a burglary.

Radley Balko makes a similar error -- he quotes a passage from the the same New York Times article, and just like the guys at TAPPED, he leaves out the salient facts. Instead, he says this:

Maybe this guy should have been more careful who he lent his car to. Maybe he shouldn’t have drank so much. Maybe he shouldn’t have been partying with such shady characters. But life in prison? Come on.


Or maybe he shouldn't have loaned his car to people who told him they planned to use it in a burglary.

Not surprisingly, Balko's old nemesis, Patterico, is on the case. As Patterico observes, "Balko’s post makes it sound like this fellow simply lent his car to some people, without any idea that they were going to go commit a burglary or hurt anyone."

If you want to argue against the felony murder rule, fine. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, in most instances -- I think that those who participate in or facilitate serious felonies share moral culpability with those who actually pull the trigger or do the beating. And such liability is easy to avoid: if you hang out with people who like to beat, rob, or rape other people, don't loan them your car.

But why is it that the folks who are so critical of the felony murder rule have to lie about the facts, or rather leave out salient facts? If they really think it's a bad rule, then they ought to be willing to argue that Holle shouldn't be held liable for murder even if he knew they were going to be bludgeon the girl to death and lent them the car anyway. Heck, if you really don't think the felony murder rule is a good rule, only the guy who actually did the bludgeoning should be convicted of murder -- even the other burglars get off the hook.

If that's their argument, they ought to make it, rather than twisting the facts to try to make it seem as if an injustice is occurring.

UPDATE: In the comments, Brad Plummer corrects an error on my part -- I had said he was associated with TAPPED, which is not the case. Brad Plumer has his own blog, which I could have noted by the simple expedient of reading. I had found his article following the link from Scott Lemieux at TAPPED, and somehow I got it in my head they were both TAPPED bloggers. One might note the irony of my making a simple factual mistake in a post which accuses other bloggers of getting the facts wrong.

Brad is also quite good-natured about my reference to the way he and the other bloggers referred to the facts, which made me feel worse than I would have if he had launched a scathing attack on me. I used the term "lie" to describe their accounts, and I now think that was overstating. Do I really think they consciously lied? Well, probably not, so I apologize to Brad Plumer, Scott Lemieux, and Radley Balko for using that term.

I suspect, instead, that they didn't see Holle's knowledge of the intended use of his vehicle as being a salient fact. My guess is that this is the reason why all three failed to include it in their original posts. For reasons I've tried to articulate, I think it is the key fact. I continue to believe their descriptions are misleading without it. But a lie is an intentional misstatement of fact, and that was an overstatement on my part. I should not have accused them of bad faith.

I still think they were wrong, though.

UPDATE 2: I fixed a couple of typos.

UPDATE 3: Additional Thoughts Felony Murder Here.

4 comments:

Brad Plumer said...

Well I see my reign of lying and terror is over. But I don't have any association with TAPPED...

cheerful iconoclast said...

Thanks for the comment. I've added a correction.

Anonymous said...

います。二人とも濡れ濡れになってきました。良い感じです。  台湾風俗そして、スマタを開始しますが、A嬢にスマタ☆彡をしているときはB嬢に指入れ。B嬢にスマタ☆彡をしている時はA嬢に指入れと お互いのコンディションを落とさないように努めました。非常に疲れましたが・・・楽しめた! んで、A嬢にスマタ☆彡をしている時にフィニッシュです。分身はB嬢にぶっかけましたがね。 最後のシャワーはB嬢と一緒に入って、仲良くバイバイしました。 これだけ楽しめて60分:10,000円はえらく安い。。。。 某調査部長がハマる訳がわかりました。高崎最高ですな!【風俗・夜遊び紹介所】台北夜總會林森北路情報 台北の歌舞伎町 台湾放浪記 台湾風俗探検 また、行きたいと思います。待ってろよ!高崎!!!台湾のエロい風俗店 アジア風俗 台湾の風俗完全ガイド 台湾風俗事情 台湾美人口コミされる評判店・有名店や穴場のお店など様々な台北の風俗店をユーザーのリアルな反応を独自算出した人気ランキング![台湾風俗協会]で最高の夜遊び体験を!台湾の風俗店を中心とし台湾式 超遊 台北遊 アジア マッサージ 台北夜世界 台湾娘 台湾の風俗 台湾キャバクラた台北のキャバクラ、セクシークラブ、エロマッサージ風俗情報を発信する「台湾風俗協会」!風俗体

Anonymous said...

且另一半能力有限,須到酒店兼職。個人負債:如刷卡、賭博、做生意失敗而進酒店打工。學業負債:如助學貸款。【環境】被動因素單親家庭:如身為獨生女需要照顧重病家人,需要酒店小姐妝龐大的醫藥費。養育小孩:自己獨立撫養小孩的單親媽媽。【夢想】主動因素物質夢想:想買自己的東西。金錢夢想:想存一筆錢。留學夢想:想要出國留學。購屋夢想:想要一間的房子。不論妳是甚麼原因入行,請莫忘初衷。各行各業都有其辛苦的地方,要仔細思考得失之間。既然決定到酒店工作,就要勇敢面對與承擔!2.我真的要成為酒店小姐嗎?!真的有必要到酒店工作嗎?!在酒店上班的難言之隱!• 妳受夠其他人袖手旁觀的嘴臉嗎?!惟有自己拉自己一把,才能維持基本生活與尊嚴!近來在部落格和官網留言的人,有增多的趨勢,每年這個時侯總是特別忙。這一波的全球不景氣也牽動了台灣,也在經濟上給台灣酒店pt重重的一擊!可不是嗎? 影響的層面遍及各階層,帶來的影響是這些身為人妻、人女、女友等。大家都因為某些苦衷而進入酒店工作,都有難言之隱,心裡也都有說不出的痛楚,但家家有本難唸的經,所有的苦也只能往肚裡吞,這就是女性的偉大。有了這些收入,社會新聞可少一些想不開的,少一些人倫文章,所以有容:桌有選擇對象的權利.也可以稱為檯面下.句話我說,這行有所謂的挖角文化,也就是我們這行的行話【2020年最新版】"洗妹"我想很多人或許會看不太懂,說穿硬要有貴賤之分,「那就是妳的心態!」如果心態不正確,不管做什麼職業,終究會荒腔走板的!不論妳為何要在酒店賺錢謀生,只要不犯法,不去踩線犯規! 不去做出酒店規定超越法律的界限,在這界限之內就【用力的賺、狠狠的存!】目標達成時,當然頭也不回的轉身離開!因為在酒店工作只是跳板、只是過程。然而在酒店打工只是妳人生中的短暫階段!這份收入會幫妳挺過最艱難的苦日子,讓妳更有勇氣與信心去面對下一個人生挑戰!3.酒店上班前要有哪些心理酒店類型建設?有人說:「辛苦一陣子,也不要辛苦一輩子!」此話相當打動想入行的妳。雖然八大行業有高收入,但也有妳沒碰過、沒想過的壓力。首先妳要有【大概的保守行情一天最差也有3,000元,而用心且有手腕的姐妹一天6,000~8,000以上不是問題,一個月可賺多少錢,就看妳的出勤天數了!想要再增加收入,可從外型與手腕(如口條、談話、撒嬌等)加強。