NationStates Jolt Archive

A Scottish man who has spent 20 years on death row in the US for the murder of a two-year-old girl is set to be freed after agreeing a plea bargain.

Kenny Richey, whose conviction was overturned, will plead no contest to attempted involuntary manslaughter and child endangering.

He was convicted in 1987 of an arson attack on an apartment block in an Ohio town which killed Cynthia Collins.

It is thought he will enter a plea on Thursday and then return to Scotland.

The plea would see him being sentenced to time already served.

[...] A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but a statement that no defence will be presented.

It is treated like a guilty plea by courts.

Mr Parsigian said the plea deal was "as close to the state admitting it was wrong as we are going to get".

[...] Karen Torley, his ex-fiancée and head of the Kenny Richey Campaign, said the plea was a face-saving exercise for prosecutors.

[...] Campaign group Reprieve has been working for years to secure Richey's release.

Reprieve's legal director Clive Stafford Smith said the case epitomized what was wrong with capital punishment.

Mr Stafford Smith said: "An innocent man gets a death sentence because he had an incompetent lawyer at trial, his conviction is reversed two decades later, and then he has to enter a plea to avoid a second death sentence.

"It was the right thing to do - nobody can expect him to trust a system that already got it so terribly wrong - but it's an insane process nevertheless."

Richey had always denied murdering his former girlfriend's two-year-old daughter, Cynthia Collins.


(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7152577.stm))

Reason #7325 why I don't like capital punishment.

Reason #7325 why I don't like capital punishment.

Reason #1 why I do like capital punishment.
http://www.hauntedcomputer.com/ted-bundy.jpg

Hmm, I didn't know Ohio had the death penalty. Yet another reason to dislike my neighbors to the south.

Hmm, I didn't know Ohio had the death penalty. Yet another reason to dislike my neighbors to the south.

Death is good, penalty is bad. Punishment is just an obtuse system.

An innocent man gets a death sentence because he had an incompetent lawyer at trial, his conviction is reversed two decades later, and then he has to enter a plea to avoid a second death sentence.

Wait, wait, wait. Did this guy set the fire that killed the girl, or did he not? If yes, how the heck is he innocent?

Wait, wait, wait. Did this guy set the fire that killed the girl, or did he not? If yes, how the heck is he innocent?

Good question. 'Cause it's murder if he did set it.

Wait, wait, wait. Did this guy set the fire that killed the girl, or did he not? If yes, how the heck is he innocent?

He's done twenty years jail. He's not contesting the new charges, because that would just be a waste of time. Perhaps if he beat the new charges, he'd get compensation ... but I can see how he wants out of jail more than he wants money.

Kind of unsatisfactory for us, but I guess he's neither guilty nor innocent.

*sigh* it seems only the good ol' Republic of Texas has things right



we don't let people on death row sit idle for over six years. we like to kill 'em asap, or else shit like this happens and we have to "re-evaluate" their prison sentence like a bunch of liberal pansies

I don't see why any country even keeps foreign criminals in their prison. If I ran a nation, any foreigner guilty of any crime would be deported immediately. Makes no sense really, that America wasted all of it's tax dollars keeping him in prison when we should have sent him home in the first place.

*sigh* it seems only the good ol' Republic of Texas has things right



we don't let people on death row sit idle for over six years. we like to kill 'em asap, or else shit like this happens and we have to "re-evaluate" their prison sentence like a bunch of liberal pansies

I hope you know what forum you are in; you have just stepped in a proverbial dog-pile.

I hope you know what forum you are in; you have just stepped in a proverbial dog-pile.

bring it on


i've been pumping the iron of social justice and doing pull ups on the bar of common sense! :D

bring it on


i've been pumping the iron of social justice and doing pull ups on the bar of common sense! :D

Good for you. It is like throwing yourself on a grenade. I salute you!

Good for you. It is like throwing yourself on a grenade. I salute you!


LMAO! well i don't wanna throw myself on a grenade...........



(my original post was incredibly facetious mate, just to let ya know) ;)

I believe this proves my theory right:

No matter where you may be you can be sure a Scotsman is less than 10 miles distance

Reason #1 why I do like capital punishment.
http://www.hauntedcomputer.com/ted-bundy.jpg

killing the mentally ill FTW! (you really couldn't find a better case?)

I don't see why any country even keeps foreign criminals in their prison. If I ran a nation, any foreigner guilty of any crime would be deported immediately. Makes no sense really, that America wasted all of it's tax dollars keeping him in prison when we should have sent him home in the first place.

ah but as the crime was committed in the US he is subject to its laws and such

its mainly just to stop a public uproar but (I would hope) also to stop human right abuses taking place

killing the mentally ill FTW! (you really couldn't find a better case?)



He isn't considered mentally ill here. Wasn't then and wouldn't be today.

Edit: not to mention that he probably *wasn't* insane of course.

Obviously, this case has been getting a lot of press here in Scotland; has been for years. It's always seemed somewhat fishy, albeit from the enviable position of the sofa.

I believe this proves my theory right:

No matter where you may be you can be sure a Scotsman is less than 10 miles distance
We're like rats!

its mainly just to stop a public uproar but (I would hope) also to stop human right abuses taking place
That's not stopped the UK government from doing the very same.

He isn't considered mentally ill here. Wasn't then and wouldn't be today.

pfft the guys grandfather was a racist animal torturer whilst his grandmother was manically depressed (as you would be) and eventually suffered from agoraphobia...

(if you follow Sigmund Freud psychology you just came in your pants and most other psychological viewpoints would see things such a learned behavior and all the crazy jazz etc)

I also seem to remember the incident with the knives when he was a baby which rings the bell on just how long this guy had issues

The fire started at about 4:15 a.m. Five eyewitnesses testified that after Richey emerged onto the scene: (1) he repeatedly hollered that "[t]here's a baby in the house"; (2) he repeatedly attempted to enter the burning apartment building to save Cynthia's life; (3) he proceeded so far into the building that "he came back out coughing and spitting up"; and (4) and police eventually had to restrain him from entering the building. The Assistant Fire Chief stated that Richey's efforts to save Cynthia "constituted that of a person who completely was disregarding his own safety." Conversely, another tenant testified that upon viewing the fire, Richey boasted that "[i]t looks like I did a helluva good job, don't it."

Appeal argued May 7 2003, decided Jan 25 2005 (pdf) (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0039p-06.pdf)

On the other hand, it seems he lit the fire on purpose. Forensic tests by the police were inadequate, so they used witnesses who'd been at a party with Richey.

He wasn't a very nice guy, jealous and vengeful, drunk and stoned at the time of the incident. I find it hard to believe he planned to set a fire, BUT forgot that the little girl he was babysitting was in the apartment. The above, though, makes me think he didn't deliberately kill the girl.

I also seem to remember the incident with the knives when he was a baby which rings the bell on just how long this guy had issues

Issues, sure. He certainly needed help, and didn't get it in time to stop the killings. But I don't recall any evidence that he wasn't capable of telling right from wrong - he was highly intelligent and sociable: not likely that he didn't know what was and wasn't legal/acceptable behavior. 'Irresistable impulse' isn't enough nowadays even if he could've proved that.

Of course, there's a difference between being sane and sane enough to stand trial. No question the guy was off his nut. :p

Hmm, I didn't know Ohio had the death penalty. Yet another reason to dislike my neighbors to the south.

To the south? There's a state north of Ohio?! :eek:

Personally I am in favor of the death penalty. I believe it's more humane to just kill a criminal than let him rot in prison until his death 60 years later. If I was ever to be put in jail knowing I'll never see the sun as a free man ever again, I'd rather them just kill me and get it done with. I believe a true life sentance is far more cruel than any capital punishment could ever be.

On the other hand, it seems he lit the fire on purpose. Forensic tests by the police were inadequate, so they used witnesses who'd been at a party with Richey.

He wasn't a very nice guy, jealous and vengeful, drunk and stoned at the time of the incident. I find it hard to believe he planned to set a fire, BUT forgot that the little girl he was babysitting was in the apartment. The above, though, makes me think he didn't deliberately kill the girl.

It's legally meaningless whether he meant to do it or not. Felony murder rule and all that - intent makes no difference.

However:

"[i]t looks like I did a helluva good job, don't it."

doesn't sound like something a Scottish person would say, does it? Sounds like he could've used a better lawyer, unless the T.V. has misinformed me about colloquial Scottish English. :p

I believe it's more humane to just kill a criminal than let him rot in prison until his death 60 years later.
But criminals sentenced to death in the US aren't 'just' killed. They sit for years on Death Row, as Kenny Richey did, combining the death penalty with the prison term you so dislike.

Moreover, the solution isn't to execute sooner; cases like Richey's and others' show that innocent folks get put on Death Row, so an appeals process surely must be put into place.

ah but as the crime was committed in Ohio he is subject to its laws and such

Fixed. The government of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this. Even if it wanted to, there is nothing the US government could do (short of the Supreme Court finding capital punishment unconstitutional) to stop the death penalty in Ohio.

We're like rats!

and both are far more common in pub environments (where I get ultimately beaten at pool:mad:)

That's not stopped the UK government from doing the very same.

yeah but thats just because the government doesn't like humans as of late

SNIP

it looks like insufficient evidence to give any sort of case

Issues, sure. He certainly needed help, and didn't get it in time to stop the killings. But I don't recall any evidence that he wasn't capable of telling right from wrong - he was highly intelligent and sociable: not likely that he didn't know what was and wasn't legal/acceptable behavior. 'Irresistable impulse' isn't enough nowadays even if he could've proved that.

well we know

1) he was a sick man
2) we know exactly why he did these things and it wasn't some sort of rational adult behind them
3) he admitted to being a sick man
4) killing him solves what exactly?

Of course, there's a difference between being sane and sane enough to stand trial. No question the guy was off his nut. :p

I think when the illness has a very real affect on the actions and no doubt caused the whole issue it does kind of mean that maybe he wasn't responsible for his own actions

But criminals sentenced to death in the US aren't 'just' killed. They sit for years on Death Row, as Kenny Richey did, combining the death penalty with the prison term you so dislike.

I know. As the saying goes "The Devil is in the details." I hate that fact.

Moreover, the solution isn't to execute sooner; cases like Richey's and others' show that innocent folks get put on Death Row, so an appeals process surely must be put into place.

Innocent people are indeed put onto death row. However, innocent people have probably been put on a life sentence as well as a normal jail term too. I'm not saying "They're innocent and on death row? Oh, sucks to be them." However I do think that after their appeals have been exhausted they should simply be executed anyways. I personally believe it would be better that way than letting them rot in jail on death row waiting in hopes of new technology coming into action to prove their innocence. The appeal system would be in place to eliminate any innocent executions but even if a couple cases fall through the cracks that way, I still think it would be better than letting everyone rot in jail for decades waiting for the all merciful heart attack to end their miserable existance. Everything has a price and even though that price may be high and tragic, sometimes it's still worth it. From my perspective it is anyway.

1) he was a sick man
2) we know exactly why he did these things and it wasn't some sort of rational adult behind them
3) he admitted to being a sick man
4) killing him solves what exactly?



He admitted to anything anyone wanted to hear after he was sentenced to death. He didn't attempt an insanity defense, and there still isn't evidence that I can recall that he was unable to resist his impulse to kill, even if that were the standard. In any case, capital punishment isn't a big issue for me - I only meant to point out that he didn't apparently meet the legal definition of insanity, or even come very close,as it was.

Canadian on death row in U.S. will most likely not be released, government decides to stop caring (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=fce71e26-6a8d-4b1c-912b-2387313badce&k=34925)

Apologies for the CanWest article.

Fixed. The government of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this. Even if it wanted to, there is nothing the US government could do (short of the Supreme Court finding capital punishment unconstitutional) to stop the death penalty in Ohio.

curse your lack of legal union!

I only meant to point out that he didn't apparently meet the legal definition of insanity, or even come very close,as it was.

I was just hoping someone would bring up the Red Army Faction so we can have a good discussion on that :( (to this day the evidence shows they where perfectly sane people, but how?)

it looks like insufficient evidence to give any sort of case

It's from an appeal. Sure, I could quote the whole thing, but I thought it was a valuable contribution to link to something other than a news article.
The appeal makes pretty clear how weak the prosecution case for murder is. You might want to read it.

You could have at least left the link in. *sulks*

curse your lack of legal union!

*imagines the horrors of a legal union with Texas*

It's legally meaningless whether he meant to do it or not. Felony murder rule and all that - intent makes no difference.

Wtf? How far does that apply? If I sold you some heroin (a felony) and you overdosed, would I be a murderer?

*snip*
I personally believe it would be better that way than letting them rot in jail on death row waiting in hopes of new technology coming into action to prove their innocence. The appeal system would be in place to eliminate any innocent executions but even if a couple cases fall through the cracks that way, I still think it would be better than letting everyone rot in jail for decades waiting for the all merciful heart attack to end their miserable existance. Everything has a price and even though that price may be high and tragic, sometimes it's still worth it. From my perspective it is anyway.

There's a simple solution to that: give them the option of taking their own lives. They sign a document saying that they are dying by their own choice, then it's one last cigarette and the poison pill.

It's not for us to decide if a life in jail is worth living. We could save a buck, too.

Wtf? How far does that apply? If I sold you some heroin (a felony) and you overdosed, would I be a murderer?

Nah, that would be unlikely. The felony murder rule is mostly used to convict people who were involved in a murder, but didn't do the actual killing, e.g. a half dozen guys rob a bank, a customer panics and has a heart attack; all are charged with the murder; a guy burns down his business for the insurance money; a fireman is killed when the roof collapses; the guy is charged with the murder - that kind of thing.

Different states go at it in different ways, but even where selling/giving someone drugs is a felony, there has to be some forseeability that someone's going to get hurt, and if you interpreted the death as forseeable, you'd have to charge a *lot* of drug dealers. It wouldn't be practical.

*Edit: disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. Don't cut-and-paste this for your term paper. :p

Nah, that would be unlikely. The felony murder rule is mostly used to convict people who were involved in a murder, but didn't do the actual killing, e.g. a half dozen guys rob a bank, a customer panics and has a heart attack; all are charged with the murder; a guy burns down his business for the insurance money; a fireman is killed when the roof collapses; the guy is charged with the murder - that kind of thing.

Different states go at it in different ways, but even where selling/giving someone drugs is a felony, there has to be some forseeability that someone's going to get hurt, and if you interpreted the death as forseeable, you'd have to charge a *lot* of drug dealers. It wouldn't be practical.

*Edit: disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. Don't cut-and-paste this for your term paper. :p

If I was going to use that for a term paper, the title would be "US law is fucking retarded!" ... I think I'd be wise to write on some other subject. :p

Nah, that would be unlikely. The felony murder rule is mostly used to convict people who were involved in a murder, but didn't do the actual killing, e.g. a half dozen guys rob a bank, a customer panics and has a heart attack; all are charged with the murder; a guy burns down his business for the insurance money; a fireman is killed when the roof collapses; the guy is charged with the murder - that kind of thing.

Different states go at it in different ways, but even where selling/giving someone drugs is a felony, there has to be some forseeability that someone's going to get hurt, and if you interpreted the death as forseeable, you'd have to charge a *lot* of drug dealers. It wouldn't be practical.

*Edit: disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. Don't cut-and-paste this for your term paper. :p


That's...for the most part right. Typically felony murder only applies to deaths that result for violent crimes, and anyone who is involved in the commission of the crime.

For felony murder to apply:

1) the death must have been reasonably forseeable
2) the connection between the underlying felony and the death can not be too remote

there is also a third condition, known as the merger doctrine, which basically precludes crimes of assault or manslaughter into giving rise to felony murder. Merger doctrine is kinda annoying, and won't bother explaining unless anyone cares.

oh, also, important to this case is that for felony murder to give rise to the death penalty, there are other conditions that do matter, and intent does become a factor in felony murder, when the death penalty is involved.

*sigh* it seems only the good ol' Republic of Texas has things right



we don't let people on death row sit idle for over six years. we like to kill 'em asap, or else shit like this happens and we have to "re-evaluate" their prison sentence like a bunch of liberal pansies

Sounds Texan to me. "We might me wrong, but dangit, we ain't about to find out!"

Probably not the lowest. I'm sure someone's set the bar low just to set it low.

Off topic: Incidentally, still planning on joining that Spycraft game? I have the book if you need it.

yes, I did a bit of reading, sounds interesting, has it begun already?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK!

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to represent. Is it a sound? Something you're doing now?

Gross

yes, I did a bit of reading, sounds interesting, has it begun already?

Not even close. We've got six open slots and 3 officially filled. Dem will (hopefully) be filling in the fourth slot, and I've been bugging Jocabia about it too. Still, he's made it clear that if we go over six, he'll set it up with two smaller, parties.

We likely won't be starting until after New Year's at the earliest.

Not even close. We've got six open slots and 3 officially filled. Dem will (hopefully) be filling in the fourth slot, and I've been bugging Jocabia about it too. Still, he's made it clear that if we go over six, he'll set it up with two smaller, parties.

We likely won't be starting until after New Year's at the earliest.

OK, cool, count me in then.

OK, cool, count me in then.

Cool. Just go on the site and make your account. That way can count you in the tally.

Gee, nip off to another thread for twenty minutes, miss a suicide-by-mod. :(

If my comments were flamebait, I take some responsibility. Some US States have excellent laws, things just seem a bit twisted around the subject of murder. One thing I'll say in favour, is that US court proceedings are plainly written, the 'tests' well outlined.

That's...for the most part right. Typically felony murder only applies to deaths that result for violent crimes, and anyone who is involved in the commission of the crime.

For felony murder to apply:

1) the death must have been reasonably forseeable
2) the connection between the underlying felony and the death can not be too remote

there is also a third condition, known as the merger doctrine, which basically precludes crimes of assault or manslaughter into giving rise to felony murder. Merger doctrine is kinda annoying, and won't bother explaining unless anyone cares.

So, if I was robbing a bank with a gun and dropped it, setting it off and killing someone, felony murder.

But if I was mugging someone, punched them in the head and gave them a brain embolism of which they died, NOT felony murder?

I'm not sure I can stand the truth, but you could perhaps link instead of boring everyone ...

EDIT: I didn't mean a description of the merger doctrine would bore me! I was rephrasing Neo Art's "won't bother explaining unless anyone cares" in light of the fact that I might be the ONLY person who cares. OK, Ardchoille?

Modedit: NH, we have to stop meeting like this!

Yes, it's OK.

EDIT: Good. :) Don't spam Moderation. :D

So, if I was robbing a bank with a gun and dropped it, setting it off and killing someone, felony murder.

But if I was mugging someone, punched them in the head and gave them a brain embolism of which they died, NOT felony murder?

I'm not sure I can stand the truth, but you could perhaps link instead of boring everyone ...

I would argue actually that the second example is more like felony murder than the first. While robbing the bank is a violent act, the death that resulted may, arguably, be too far removed, that dropping the gun, which resulted in death, may have been an intervening act, it was not the robbery, it was the dropping of the gun (though of course, some would argue that there would have been no gun without any robbery).

In both instances you committed a violent act (robbing the store/punching a guy in the face). However in both circumstances things wierd and unforseen occurred. Really it depends on how "wierd and coincidental" events are from the original criminal act to see if it fits felony murder.

The merger doctrine, which is odd and confusing, basically states that the underlying crime for felony murder can not be manslaughter, otherwise all manslaughter would be murder, destroying the difference between the two.

Moreover, I need to point out, your examples are not as different as you think they are. Robbing a bank with a gun and "mugging someone and punching them in the face" are the same thing, as a general principle, they're both robbery.

Robbery is losely defined as a theft through force or intimidation. By punching someone in the face while robbing them, you turn a theft into a robbery. Mugging is robbery. In both instances there was a robbery, in both instances someone died in a "wierd and freaky way", so I'm unsure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw.

Moreover, I need to point out, your examples are not as different as you think they are. Robbing a bank with a gun and "mugging someone and punching them in the face" are the same thing, as a general principle, they're both robbery.

Those were intended to be similar scenarios, I was focussed on the word "assault" you mentioned. One with, one without.

{I'm always troubled by the way individual assaults are taken so lightly. It seems to me the law needs to be very strict on "crimes of passion" precisely because they aren't well planned as a rule. Anger decreases a person's judgement ... shouldn't the expected punishment be more severe, to overcome that?) ... sidetrack.

Robbery is losely defined as a theft through force or intimidation. By punching someone in the face while robbing them, you turn a theft into a robbery. Mugging is robbery. In both instances there was a robbery, in both instances someone died in a "wierd and freaky way", so I'm unsure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw.

It would be easier if I could just read a simple description of the merger doctrine. I'll read the Wikipedia if you don't have a better link.

Let's just try it one more time ...

Suppose in the first case that while menacing bank staff with the gun, the bandit shoots someone who they thought was pulling a gun of their own. This plainly wouldn't have happened if the bandit hadn't been holding a loaded gun in commissioning a crime. Their argument that they thought someone was going to shoot them wouldn't save them from felony murder, right?

Now in the second case, suppose the unarmed mugger is a bit weedy, demands the money "or I'll beat you up." The muggee reckons they can take them, and throws the first punch. (Up to now, I'd be fine with calling the whole thing off, mugger can take his sorry ass home.) But the mugger realizes he's in danger because this victim isn't like the others, and there's a fist fight in which the muggee is accidentally killed (the brain embolism). Felony murder?

Have I managed to create two scenarios which are the same except that one has "assault" and the other not ?

Those were intended to be similar scenarios, I was focussed on the word "assault" you mentioned. One with, one without.

The problem is, legally, an "assault" is by definition a crime of violence or threat of violence against a person. In both instances, you have an assault. It is, in fact, not true you actually have to HURT somoen, and perhaps this is where we are coming from with our confusion. Despite popular conception, I need not harm you to have assaulted you, merely intentionally put you in apprehention of harm.


Let's just try it one more time ...

Suppose in the first case that while menacing bank staff with the gun, the bandit shoots someone who they thought was pulling a gun of their own. This plainly wouldn't have happened if the bandit hadn't been holding a loaded gun in commissioning a crime. Their argument that they thought someone was going to shoot them wouldn't save them from felony murder, right?

Now in the second case, suppose the unarmed mugger is a bit weedy, demands the money "or I'll beat you up." The muggee reckons they can take them, and throws the first punch. (Up to now, I'd be fine with calling the whole thing off, mugger can take his sorry ass home.) But the mugger realizes he's in danger because this victim isn't like the others, and there's a fist fight in which the muggee is accidentally killed (the brain embolism). Felony murder?

Have I managed to create two scenarios which are the same except that one has "assault" and the other not ?

You're still running into the same problem, and again, it has to do with merger doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_doctrine). Let me try to explain what this is....

Some crimes are effectivly a combination of multiple crimes all committed together (confused yet?). For instance, let's be a bit overly simplistice...

theft = taking of someone's property
assault = use or threat to use force

now, then we have robbery, robbery is theft perpetrated through the use, or threat to use force. In both instances, what we have is robbery.

An example. I sneak up behind you and stealthily steal your wallet. This is theft. I come up to you and say "give me your wallet or I kill you". This is robbery.

Likewise, a bank. If I, in the middle of the night, break into the bank vault and steal from it...theft. If I walk into the bank and hold a guy demanding money...robbery.

In both instances in your example you are detailing a robbery (or attempted robbery). Theft through the use or threat to use force.

In order to prove one committed the crime of robbery, the government must prove each element of the crime. An element of robbery is the use, or threat to use force. Therefore, included within the crime of robbery is the crime of assault. You can not rob someone without committing an assault on them, robbery, by definition, includes assault.

So, what the merger doctrine states is that I can not simultaniously rob and assault you at the same time, since by robbing you, I, by definition, assaulted you. By saying "give me your wallet or I will kill you" I have attempted a robbery. Because this attempted robbery includes the elmeent of assault, I can not thus be charged with both robbery AND assault. I would, effectivly, be charged with the same thing twice, because robbery already includes assault.

So, in your example..we're not dealing with any assaults. We are, in fact, dealing with robberies. And a robbery is certainly something for which the felony murder rule applies.

When I say "assault" can not be felony murder what I mean is this...let's take robbery out of the picture entirely. Let's say I walk up to you and punch you in the face. No intent ot steal, or kill, or anything other than punch you in the face. You die as a result. I did not intend this death, but my actions resulted in your death.

I have thus committed manslaughter. And, as I said, manslaughter can not be the underlying crime for a felony murder charge, because if so, there would be no such thing as manslaughter, as all manslaughters would be murders, thus defeating the point of seperating the two. Likewise, an assault that results in death (note, ASSAULT, not ROBBERY, or any other crime that INCLUDES an assault) can not be considered felony murder because, that once again, would eliminate the charge of manslaughter.

Clear as mud?

lemme try this a bit easier...

Felony murder rule states in general "if you commit a crime and death results it's murder."

Manslaughter is a crime of killing someone.

Ergo any time I commit manslaughter I commit a crime and death results.

So if manslaughter counted as felony murder then "if you commit a crime and death results it's murder, manslaughter is a crime where death results, ergo manslaughter is murder". Therefore we have just eliminated the crime of manslaughter, since every manslaughter would be a murder. The whole point of the seperate crimes is that the legislature intended manslaughter and murder to be seperate crimes. So manslaughter can't be a crime that becomes felony murder, or all manslaughters would be murders.

Now, to assault. The legislature has codified when an assault that results in death is murder, and when an assault that results in death is manslaughter. Many factors are considered, state of mind, weapon used, intent, all these things determine whether assault that results in death is murder, or manslaughter.

Sometimes an assault that results in death is murder (IE premeditation), sometimes it is manslaughter (IE no intent, heat of passion). The legislature has clearly defined that not every assault that results in death is murder, because they clearly intended some assaults resulting in death to be manslaughter.

Therefore, assault can not be a crime triggering felony murder, since, remember, felony murder is if you commit a crime, and death results, it's murder. If it were so, any time someone committed an assault that resulted in death, it would be murder. However the legislature clearly articulated that certain assaults that lead to death are manslaughter. To automatically create a triggering mechanism in which any assault that leads to death becomes felony murder would eliminate automatically those circumstances articulated by the legislature when it is manslaughter instead.

However, in YOUR example, in BOTH of your examples, what you have is NOT assault. What you have in both examples is robbery. Theft perpetrated through the use, or threat to use, force (theft via assault). The legislature has not articulated that certain deaths resulting from a ROBBERY become manslaughter, so we may freely treat them as murder.

The point of the merger doctrine is that the highest crime is the crime you committed. When you commit robbery, you commit robbery, not assault, not theft. Robbery includes the elements that make up assault and theft, but is a different crime. In both your examples, what you explain is robbery. And because it's robbery, NOT assault, we don't have ot worry about the pesky "some assaults that result in death are manslaughter by design" problem. Because it's not assault. It's robbery.

*phew* hope that helped some.

Clear as mud?

Most excellent, thankyou. I feel better about being an unskilled labourer and general bum now. ;)

I'll remember it as "the lesser crime is merged into the greater."

With respect to mr. Richey, I doubt the fact that he'd been drinking and smoking into the early hours of the morning would make him incompetent to foresee that burning the house would lead to the death of the child.

He might well have forgotten the little girl was there, I wouldn't think that would be a defense.

This was basically a problem with the handling of the evidence, right? The carpet was mishandled, and incompetent forensics done on it. If it had been proven that mr. Richey had spread petrol in the living room and set it alight, then left, leaving the girl in the house ... it would be a murder?

Failing to prove that is the fault of the prosecution, they just got lucky from an incompetent defense, and now it's been overturned.

OK, I got the second one more clearly. Thanks.

Most excellent, thankyou. I feel better about being an unskilled labourer and general bum now. ;)

I'll remember it as "the lesser crime is merged into the greater."

With respect to mr. Richey, I doubt the fact that he'd been drinking and smoking into the early hours of the morning would make him incompetent to foresee that burning the house would lead to the death of the child.

He might well have forgotten the little girl was there, I wouldn't think that would be a defense.

This was basically a problem with the handling of the evidence, right? The carpet was mishandled, and incompetent forensics done on it. If it had been proven that mr. Richey had spread petrol in the living room and set it alight, then left, leaving the girl in the house ... it would be a murder?

Failing to prove that is the fault of the prosecution, they just got lucky from an incompetent defense, and now it's been overturned.

I think, almost certainly, had the trial been properly conducted, and his guilt established, he'd almost certainly be guilty of murder. Setting some place afire and having someone die as a result is pretty much the text book reason why we HAVE a felony murder rule in the first place.

oh, and "I was drunk" is not a defense, because the standard is "would a reasonable person have forseen it". If you, through your own volition, lower your abilities to perceive the likelihood of your actions, this isn't an excuse. you can't drink yourself into a stupor then escape the consequences of your actions on the basis of you were too drunk to realize the risk.

oh and I must admit an error. Let's go back to my hypothetical "give me your wallet or I kill you" and you give me your wallet. I said I can not be charged with robbery theft and assault. This is in fact not true. I can be charged with robbery, theft and assault. I can not, however, be convicted of all of them.

If I had simply stolen your wallet, without you noticing, that's theft. But by committing an assault in order to perpetrate my theft, that's robbery. Robbery has a longer prison time than theft. It has this longer sentence, generally, because I have committed theft and assault at the same time. To convict me for both robbery and assault would be basically to sentence me for my assault, twice.

However, I can be charged with lesser included offenses, under the idea that the government might prove some elements, but not all. In other words, to convict me of robbery the government must prove that I a) committed, and b) threatened or used force to perpetrate my theft. In order for a jury to convict me, they must believe that the government proved BOTH of these things.

If however the jury believes that the government only proved I STOLE, not that I used force, they can still convict me on theft. Likewise if the jury believes the government only proved I used a threat of violence, but did not do so to take property, they can convict me of assault.

I can also be convicted of theft and assault, if the jury believes I did steal, and did threaten violence, but that the two were unconnected.

This is why prosecutors often throw in multiple charges. We want you to convict for murder, but if you don't believe he murdered him, then convict for manslaughter

Good god, that article wasn't biased at all. I know English-English is pretty hard to read for Americans, but I read that article as saying this. (putting it in a quote box.)

Despite starting a fire that resulted in the death of a two year old girl, Mr. Richey is innocent of murder and has plead no contest to a charge of manslaughter. Having already spent 20 years in prison, the prosecution is asking for a sentence of time served in return for a plea of no contest to manslaughter.

Which of course we all know the only difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. Did he intend to the kill the girl or no? Since the prosecution believe he did not intend to kill anyone they were satisfied with waving the death penalty and letting Richey go after having served 20 years for the death of a little girl.

Hell that guy got off lucky. About four years ago we (South Dakota) sent a man to jail for sixty years for possession of child porn and he didn't even kill anyone. It was almost a terrabyte worth of files and the judge said he was clearly moving towards "more destructive acts."

Did he intend to the kill the girl or no?

We don't even know whether he started the fire. Have you read the article. His conviction for arson was overturned.

killing the mentally ill FTW! (you really couldn't find a better case?)

Tookie Williams
Nazi leaders (assuming that Hitler and Goebbels didn't kill themselves)
BTK Killer
Ed Gein
Scott Peterson
Osama ibn Laden (assuming that he isn't dead)
Saddam Hussein

Also, I know some mentally ill people. Last time I checked, they didn't go around killing people. But what do I know? I support capital punishment so I'm probably some ignorant redneck (who is black, from the North, and not Christian).

Tookie Williams
Nazi leaders (assuming that Hitler and Goebbels didn't kill themselves)
BTK Killer
Ed Gein
Scott Peterson
Osama ibn Laden (assuming that he isn't dead)
Saddam Hussein

Are you trying to prove some kind of point? Such as "It's perfectly legitimate to execute the innocent, because we want revenge on nasty people"?

If so, you fail lamentably.

Are you trying to prove some kind of point? Such as "It's perfectly legitimate to execute the innocent, because we want revenge on nasty people"?

If so, you fail lamentably.

More like "It's perfectly legitimate to execute the guilty, because we want to stop their crimes, punish them for their crimes, and show any 'copycats' not to do this crime".

I don't know if you've ever been to Jamaica, but it is very high in crime. Ever since the death penalty has been abolished, crime has sky-rocketed. When the death penalty was in place, Jamaica was safe. The Jamaican government is currently trying to get the British to allow the death penalty back, but any attempts so far have been rejected.

More like "It's perfectly legitimate to execute the guilty, because we want to stop their crimes, punish them for their crimes, and show any 'copycats' not to do this crime".

You've utterly missed my point. You cannot have a death penalty without occasionally executing the innocent. To support the death penalty is to say that executing the innocent "doesn't really matter".


I don't know if you've ever been to Jamaica, but it is very high in crime. Ever since the death penalty has been abolished, crime has sky-rocketed. When the death penalty was in place, Jamaica was safe. The Jamaican government is currently trying to get the British to allow the death penalty back, but any attempts so far have been rejected.

The British don't get to have a say in it. Jamaica isn't a British colony: it's a fully sovereign nation. The reason why it can't apply the death penalty (unless I'm mistaken) is because the highest court of Jamaica is still the Privy Court in London, and the Privy Court systematically overturns death sentences. Jamaica, as a sovereign nation, has a right to abomish all appeals to the Privy Court if it wishes. Australia has done so, I believe.

If you want to start comparing countries, what do you make of the fact that France, where the death penalty was abolished 26 years ago, has a much lower rate of violent crime per capita than the US?

More like "It's perfectly legitimate to execute the guilty, because we want to stop their crimes, punish them for their crimes, and show any 'copycats' not to do this crime".

I don't know if you've ever been to Jamaica, but it is very high in crime. Ever since the death penalty has been abolished, crime has sky-rocketed. When the death penalty was in place, Jamaica was safe. The Jamaican government is currently trying to get the British to allow the death penalty back, but any attempts so far have been rejected.

I'm unsure why the jamaican government would need to get the British to allow the death penalty in Jamaica, considering Jamaica has been a fully independant nation since the 60s...

Anyway, I don't know if you've ever been to Norway, but they have no death penalty and no mandatory life sentence. Their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world.

I'm unsure why the jamaican government would need to get the British to allow the death penalty in Jamaica, considering Jamaica has been a fully independant nation since the 60s...

Anyway, I don't know if you've ever been to Norway, but they have no death penalty and no mandatory life sentence. Their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world.

Jamaica may be fully independant but as far as I'm aware their highest court of appeals is still the House of Lords. I could be wrong however.

You've utterly missed my point. You cannot have a death penalty without occasionally executing the innocent. To support the death penalty is to say that executing the innocent "doesn't really matter".

There's corruption in everything. Of course, I don't support the corruption.

Also, some nations do have civilized people even though there is no death penalty. But to be honest, the United States would probably be just like Jamaica (increased crime without the death penalty).

There's corruption in everything. Of course, I don't support the corruption.


Yes, but supporting the death penalty means you accept and encourage the fact that innocent people are executed.

Jamaica may be fully independant but as far as I'm aware their highest court of appeals is still the House of Lords. I could be wrong however.

Jamaica, as a sovereign country, can unilateraly cut its ties to the British appeals system whenever it chooses to do so.