NonPatrician Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Is anyone interested in having a discussion about crime and punishment in relation to guilt being commutative(?) for people acting together when committing a crime? If 5 people conspire together to rob a bank and: Situation #1: Persons A, B, C, D, and E all pre-plan, travel to, enter the bank and rob it. I think we all understand that they're guilty of theft. Situation #2: Person A waits in the get away car while BCDE go in and rob the bank. Is person A guilty of theft? Why? Situation #3: Person A was an integral part of the pre-planning but stayed home on the day of the robbery. Is person A guilty of the theft? Why? What if person A stayed home because he changed his mind and no longer consented to being part of the action? Situation #4: Person A enters the bank with BCDE and is in the vault filling the bags with cash. Person B gets into an altercation with one of the hostages and shots and kills them. Is person A guilty of the murder? Why? What if person A stated as part of the pre-planning that he does not want to participate without an agreement from all of the members of the team that there will be no killing? Thoughts? Any good resources on this topic?
dsayers Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Obfuscation, blech! In sich 2, person A did not steal. However, they contributed to the theft by helping thieves to flourish and aiding in their theft. So they have also created a debt to the bank, even if we cannot call it theft. Meaning they would be actionable with the use of force to invoke restitution. In sich 3, it would depend on what is meant by "part of the pre-planning." If this participation includes things like combinations, copies of keys, or anything that directly enables the theft, see sich 2. In sich 4, person A has not committed murder. However, they ARE an accessory to murder. See sich 2.
NonPatrician Posted April 18, 2016 Author Posted April 18, 2016 Nice. Your post led me to lookup accessory to crimes which led me to "common purpose" as a common law legal doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose Will read more and see what that clarifies and if it seems to jive with the NAPs / ethics.
shirgall Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 In situation 4 the person should reasonably expect that a bank robbery could lead to the death of another, and since a death resulted as a direct results of the execution of their plan, is culpable for felony murder.
Recommended Posts