Essay on Felony Murder Law

Christopher Simmons was 17 years old when he committed murder, he was arrested in September of 1993 after bragging to his school mates about killing an individual. Simmons thought because of his age the court will be lenient on him. The jury easily found him guilty, he was facing the death penalty. His attorney argued that the courts should take his age into consideration when sentencing Simmons, after all he was a minor when the murder was committed he was not old enough to vote or legally by a drink. The jury sentenced Simmons to death by lethal injection the deciding factor for them was the brutal nature that the crime of how the crime was committed. His case was then appealed to the Supreme court his attorney’s citing his

6.1 million Americans cannot vote because of a felony conviction, among the 6.1 million are large groups of the underrepresented. Representation is important when you intend to represent an entire country, so when 6.1 million voters, which of majority are minorities, are disenfranchised, there is a massive cut of representation in our system. This is exactly what is happening right now in the United States. As of 2016, an estimated 6.1 million people were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. This figure has escalated dramatically in recent decades as the population under criminal justice supervision has increased. Even those who have completed their sentences in the ten states (Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, Florida, and Delaware) that disenfranchise people, post-sentence, make up over 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population; totaling almost 3.1 million people. If these votes were to be restored, representation would increase, leading to an equal

Defences for Murder There are only three partial defences for murder; suicide pact, provocation-the loss of self control and reaction must be instantaneous and diminished responsibility. Amongst the three mentioned two are most frequently used, these are provocation and diminished responsibility, and only one full defence, self defence. These defences are used to reduce the sentence charge by the defendant to manslaughter from murder. In the following text I will be examining how men use provocation and diminished responsibility to walk free from murder.

On December 17, 1992, 15 year-old Jacob Ind went to school after having murdered his mother and stepfather in the early hours of that morning. In an interview with Frontline he recalled, “I remember I was sitting in the police station and this is how out of touch of reality I was. I had a small amount of marijuana, like an eighth of an ounce, in my bedroom. And I 'm telling my brother, 'You got to get the marijuana or else I 'm in trouble” (Profile Jacob Ind). His attorneys contended that he was acting in self-defense, claiming that the murders were the climax of years of insult by his parents. On June 17, 1994, he was convicted and handed a mandatory sentence of lifetime without parole. This is just one of many life experiences of juveniles sentenced to life without parole in the U.S. There have been many other instances where the juvenile was not the real murderer, but was however given the lifetime without parole sentence. In those instances the defendant would have been convicted of felony murder, in which the defendant could have just been an active participant in a crime during which a murder was committed and consequently, spend life in jail without parole. Felony murder came into play in the case of Devon and Jovon Knox, in July 2007, the 17-year-old twins set out to steal a car together (Sentencing Juveniles). During the car jack, one of the brothers shot and killed the car’s owner. The panel could not decide which brother pulled

These horrible murders justify issuing the maximum penalty. State law says that murder in the first degree is punishable by life in prison or death. They went through the house, killing without remorse causing so much bloodshed. They stole, killed, and ran away from the consequences. "But," Green went on, "I see nothing to be gained by arguing the

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

In court, Alan Gell had no evidence with him to help with the case. He pleaded guilty for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery(Alexandra Gross). The girls were filled with second degree murder because they were with Alan Gell. Alan was in jail for nine years at Bertie County. He was sentenced to death on March 3,

The first two trials ended in mistrials. At the third trial, Eley was convicted of second-degree murder, 18 Pa. Con.Stat. § 2502 (b), robbery, § 3701, and conspiracy to commit robbery, § 903. He was acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of life without parole for second-degree murder, seven to twenty years for robbery, and four to twenty years for conspiracy to commit robbery. On September 22, 2003, Eley’s convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, the cases were remanded for re-sentencing, due to the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for robbery and second degree murder. Four months later the petition for allowance of appeal was denied and Eley was re-sentenced.

Only May 30 1969, sixteen-year-old David Milgaard was falsely convicted for the murder of Gail Miller. He was sentenced a life imprisonment for someone else’s crime. His friends turning on him due to drugs, police failing to look into statements and lies for money all lead to Milgaard being sentenced to a life imprisonment.

The jury found Ms. Clark guilty of murder in the shooting of Mr. Clark and recommended leniency. The trial judge noted the jury’s verdict and unfortunate situation of the Clark children. He observed that it cost the state $15,000.00 a year to house a felon in jail and that Ms. Clark has a life expectancy of 32 more years and sentenced her to

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County in 2009, Appellant, Patrick Quesenberry (“Quesenberry”), was convicted of two counts of first-degree burglary, one count of attempted first-degree rape, one count of attempted first-degree sex offense, one count of third-degree sex offense, and one count of second-degree assault. For his offenses, the court sentenced Quesenberry to a term of ten years’ imprisonment for each burglary offense, a term of life imprisonment for attempted rape, a term of life imprisonment for attempted sex offense, a term of five years’ imprisonment for third-degree sex offense, and a term of five years’ imprisonment for second-degree assault.

To be found guilty of first degree murder, it must be proven that killed someone with malice aforethought, meaning it was planned, premeditated. First degree murder is to kill malevolence, to kill either intentionally and deliberately or recklessly with the utmost disregard for human life. Premeditation may be fashioned immediately and does not require a lengthy period of contemplation. The death penalty is recognized in Thirty-eight states. Capital first-degree murder or aggravated first-degree murder is categorized in killings viewed as deserving of capital punishment. Life imprisonment or death penalty is the punishment resulted in a conviction. States who do not recognized the death penalty, aggravated murder carries life imprisonment.

You are a murderer! Like in the article by Gloria Allred and Lisa Bloom they explain a situation where

A jury convicted Justin Wolfe of premeditated killing for hire, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The jury further ruled that Wolfe fit the vague standards of future vileness and dangerousness necessary for capital punishment. While Wolfe made multiple admissions during his testimony, he did not admit to conspiracy to commit murder or murder for hire. The presence of two offenders in murder for hire, resulting in shared culpability, allowed Owen Barber, the triggerman, to testify against Wolfe, providing the prosecution with its only key piece of evidence. The dubious nature of Barber’s testimony calls into question the viability of the prosecution’s case, along with the prosecution withholding exculpatory information. Additionally, the Virginia State Bar disbarred Wolfe’s attorney for multiple counts of misconduct, calling into question the strength of Wolfe’s defense. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Justin Wolfe presents Wolfe as both the offender and the victim, and questions the sanctity of the death penalty and the underlying cause of a crime. There is no single model of justice that can adequately handle the complexities of the Commonwealth v. Wolfe, where there exists no imbalance of power between criminal justice officials, victims and offenders and imprisonment provides offenders with skills likely to reduce recidivism.

Joint Enterprise is part of common law, therefore it is not debated and agreed upon in the House of