NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.komo4news.com/stories/34046.htm



Thursday's decision stems from a controversial 2002 ruling in which the high court declared that assaults resulting in death don't amount to murder.
That ruling held that prosecutors can't charge someone with felony murder when an assault leads to death, unless the attacker intended to kill. Felony murder is the charge used when someone dies as a result of another crime, such as arson, rape or robbery.

What the hell!

I'm not sure I quite understand this. The article was too short.

Any type of murder should be an automatic trip to the old frying chair.

Any type of murder should be an automatic trip to the old frying chair.
What if he didn't intend to kill the person?

Oh dear, I'm arguing intent now, just after saying intent shouldn't matter (hate crime laws)!

I'm a hypocrite. :(

Any type of murder should be an automatic trip to the old frying chair.


To hell with that, I say everyone with a life prison sentance or the death penalty needs to be used as slave labor in special camps.

ONLY people with life sentances or death sentances though. Will help free up room in normal prisons for people victimized by the 'war on drugs.'

Wow. That really kinda guts the whole point of Felony Murder.

I think we're drawing hasty conclusions from this, but meh.

Britain has a charge called manslaughter, which is used when the prosecutors deem that the killer brought about the death, but not in a premeditated way, ie he/she did not intend his/her actions to bring about a death. Maybe this is what Washington State means.

Britain has a charge called manslaughter, which is used when the prosecutors deem that the killer brought about the death, but not in a premeditated way, ie he/she did not intend his/her actions to bring about a death. Maybe this is what Washington State means.

Some states have those laws. Some call them negligant(SP) homicide.

Yeah, assult leading to death, not murder. Its basically when you beat someone to within an inch of their life, and they go that extra mile afterwards.

The theory is that the assailant didn't mean to kill the victim, just beat them a bit; thus the resulting death was accidental and thus the state feels it was not as bad as trying to kill them outright.

Its the same kind of thinking that brought us "Vehicular Homicide" which is kind of like murder and kind of like an auto accident.

If you attack someone and they die as a result of your actions how can a court prove your intent? Either way? Are we to simply take everyone's word?

"Your Honor, I swear I had no Idea that 45 swings to the head with a ball bat would kill him, I justwanted him to listen to me."

"Your Honor, i was only trying to scare him with knife, duct tape, shallow grave."

Fecking brilliant.

"Your Honor, I swear I had no Idea that 45 swings to the head with a ball bat would kill him, I justwanted him to listen to me."

"Your Honor, i was only trying to scare him with knife, duct tape, shallow grave."

Fecking brilliant.


...I doubt even my head is hard enough to withstand 45 whacks with a bat. Still, I've seen a few accidental death reports here and there, I see the point. People can get into fights and someone gets killed; its horrible, but is it murder? Should the person be put in jail for 20+ years because a brawl got out of hand?

Considering most states only charge for murder when their is intent, this ruling makes sense and sets no precedent.

Assault is a volitional unauthorized act which puts someone in a reasonable apprehension of an eminent harmful or offensive touching.

Therefore, the person committing the assault need not actually touch the person. The court is saying that in instances where only an assault has occured, and it say, frightened a person into injuring or killing themself, the court will not convict the assaulter of murder, as they did not physically harm anyone.

This still leaves them up for manslaughter etc...
Not sure how this would apply to someone who uses a gun on one person in order to make that person kill another... as the gun wielder only committed assault. Once something like that happens, the one who killed another is not liable because the act was not volitional. So, no one would be liable for the killing as a murder. The court will reverse its decision if something of that nature ever happens, as the person would be excercising a loophole in the system the court created.

Intent is a desire or knowledge with substantial certainty of the outcome of ones actions. Extent is not a relevant factor. So, if you are in an altercation that you instigated, and batter someone, if they die as a result of the injuries sustained from your battery, despite your not desiring to kill them. You are still liable for murder. As you knew with substantial certainty that you were volitionally harmfully touching another, and injury would result.