Del. Charlotte Crutchfield proposes bill to ban felony murder charges for people under 25

[Anonymous]

Young adults are 18-24 are the most likely to commit violent crimes, precisely because their brains are not fully formed. A society needs guardrails, a common sense of right and wrong, and punishment for those who commit harm. Bills like these essentially grease the slippery slope into lawlessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Young adults are 18-24 are the most likely to commit violent crimes, precisely because their brains are not fully formed. A society needs guardrails, a common sense of right and wrong, and punishment for those who commit harm. Bills like these essentially grease the slippery slope into lawlessness.

On the other hand, "felony murder" is itself a lawless concept.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/09/24/a-person-can-be-charged-with-murder-even-if-they-haven-t-killed-anyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

John's responsibility is to protect himself. Was he doing so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

John's responsibility is to protect himself. Was he doing so?

John was protecting himself, and his only responsibility is to make sure he was following the legal requirements for gun ownership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young adults are 18-24 are the most likely to commit violent crimes, precisely because their brains are not fully formed. A society needs guardrails, a common sense of right and wrong, and punishment for those who commit harm. Bills like these essentially grease the slippery slope into lawlessness.

On the other hand, "felony murder" is itself a lawless concept.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/09/24/a-person-can-be-charged-with-murder-even-if-they-haven-t-killed-anyone

They are at fault, thus the felony murder charge. Had they minded their own business none of this would have happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

John's responsibility is to protect himself. Was he doing so?

John was protecting himself, and his only responsibility is to make sure he was following the legal requirements for gun ownership.

John has no responsibility to not accidentally shoot people and kill them? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

John's responsibility is to protect himself. Was he doing so?

John was protecting himself, and his only responsibility is to make sure he was following the legal requirements for gun ownership.

John has no responsibility to not accidentally shoot people and kill them? Wow.

So if I am attacked, I need to passively accept it because my actions might lead to someone's death?

John might as well just donate all his organs today to maximize his benefit to the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

John's responsibility is to protect himself. Was he doing so?

John was protecting himself, and his only responsibility is to make sure he was following the legal requirements for gun ownership.

John has no responsibility to not accidentally shoot people and kill them? Wow.

So if I am attacked, I need to passively accept it because my actions might lead to someone's death?

John might as well just donate all his organs today to maximize his benefit to the community.

If you have a gun, it's your responsibility to not accidentally shoot and kill people with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a person who considers myself to be a Democrat, I'm speechless. I feel like my party has lost all common sense and any notion of integrity, accountability and morality. What is wrong with these people?

The last few years have shown an interest in righting past wrongs through progressive criminal justice reform. Moving away from incarceration, and toward more compassionate and holistic retribution for assailants, such as through restorative justice, earlier release, are what are being proposed. Even John Legend and Kin Kardashian are big proponents of criminal justice reform. So we are seeing local, state and other politicians act on that type of guidance. Fox News is touting it as “soft on crime.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that brains are not fully mature until mid-20s. However we still need to enforce accountability and deterrents to recidivism. So what's the plan?

your brain continues developing growing and changing throughout your life. Past the first couple of years of life any line you would draw as to when the brain is "mature" is going to be an arbitrary one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the lawmaker didn’t go far enough. The felony murder is a terrible concept for any age. It’s devastated lives.

The life or the deceased victim, their friends and loved ones were pretty "devestated" too, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lawmaker didn’t go far enough. The felony murder is a terrible concept for any age. It’s devastated lives.

The life or the deceased victim, their friends and loved ones were pretty "devastated" too, no?

But not by the person who didn't kill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. They get charged for what they did, they don’t get charged for some magical circumstantial bullshit.

It could happen to you.

But for their robbery, the child wouldn't have been shot to death. That's not just "some circumstantial B.S."

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a person who considers myself to be a Democrat, I'm speechless. I feel like my party has lost all common sense and any notion of integrity, accountability and morality. What is wrong with these people?

The last few years have shown an interest in righting past wrongs through progressive criminal justice reform. Moving away from incarceration, and toward more compassionate and holistic retribution for assailants, such as through restorative justice, earlier release, are what are being proposed. Even John Legend and Kin Kardashian are big proponents of criminal justice reform. So we are seeing local, state and other politicians act on that type of guidance. Fox News is touting it as “soft on crime.”

And we can see the results all around us in DC and MoCo.

The idea that we should take any advice on a serious topic from a celebrity is preposterous.