Quote:
Originally Posted by christiangirl
Thanks for the explanation, MC!
Yes, it helps to further understand it. However, I disagree with this, too. A person sets out to commit robbery and commits only robbery yet is charged with a murder when he did not commit murder? Again, I understand why he would be called an accessory but that course of punishment just seems like such a...fallacy.
|
Unfortunately, it's the exact opposite of a fallacy - in fact, it's practically the only way it can be done.
First, it's nearly impossible to prove that a person set out to 'only' commit robbery - are there extensive notes beforehand? A mission statement for the crime? Some sort of compact saying "DO NOT SHOOT PEOPLE" that the other criminal violated?
Second, juries get to decide these matters, so it isn't as if the person is immediately locked away for life - they get a day in court. They'll be
charged - and I'm sure you can see why.
Third, it would be incredibly difficult to write the law to work in any other fashion, and still be effective.
Quote:
Now, in the case of this...
Responsible for what happens to those innocent bystanders who weren't aware? Yes. Responsible for what happens to the other one who set the train rolling? Well, he also started the train rolling so it's his own fault he was on the tracks when he knew full well there was a runaway train.
|
This applies to every (criminal) party involved though, does it not? How do you differentiate?
Put another way: you've basically said "the guy getting shot is responsible for getting himself shot." But the other guy did the
exact same thing! Doesn't this mean he is ALSO responsible for getting the other guy shot?
That's the genesis of the rule, almost explicitly.
Threaded Mode
