Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery.
I don’t understand why that is being equated with murder though. If I would have forced my accomplice into the life threatening situation that got them killed, sure, I would be guilty of their death; but if we assume that they went along willingly how can I get blamed that they got themselves in the situation where (someone else!) killed them?
You shared the intent to do the crime, including all its foreseeable consequences.
Criminal liability criminalizes the forming bad intentions (conspiracy and attempt, inchoate crimes) and the bad action of advancing those intention (completed crimes, choate crimes; robbery, murder).
Felony murder liability says: don’t do that (don’t conspire to do a felony that may likely kill someone and which then did kill someone).
The death arose from the shared bad intent, so the consequences are fairly shared. That’s the theory. I know some people who find this rule controversial. I find it controversial as applied, sometimes, but not in theory. It’s the economics of the rule. Can’t have people hatching dangerous conspiracies to do felonies.
Yeah, we’re asking if that’s moral? We already have laws about being party to a murder or conspiracy to murder. Why do we need to automatically extend liability?
I don’t understand why that is being equated with murder though. If I would have forced my accomplice into the life threatening situation that got them killed, sure, I would be guilty of their death; but if we assume that they went along willingly how can I get blamed that they got themselves in the situation where (someone else!) killed them?
You shared the intent to do the crime, including all its foreseeable consequences.
Criminal liability criminalizes the forming bad intentions (conspiracy and attempt, inchoate crimes) and the bad action of advancing those intention (completed crimes, choate crimes; robbery, murder).
Felony murder liability says: don’t do that (don’t conspire to do a felony that may likely kill someone and which then did kill someone).
The death arose from the shared bad intent, so the consequences are fairly shared. That’s the theory. I know some people who find this rule controversial. I find it controversial as applied, sometimes, but not in theory. It’s the economics of the rule. Can’t have people hatching dangerous conspiracies to do felonies.
If you commit a felony and during which someone dies, it’s felony murder. Even if you did nothing wrong except whatever felony
That’s the law, but is is actually just?
Yeah, we’re asking if that’s moral? We already have laws about being party to a murder or conspiracy to murder. Why do we need to automatically extend liability?