Life in Prison for Lending a Car

[Verily]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html

Now, I wouldn't say I am wholly opposed to felony murder charges, but it seems absurd that no one is able to exercise due restraint in prosecuting people. This is a blatant miscarriage of justice. I don't think, or at least I certainly hope, that there will be a single person here who thinks the guy should be guilty at all, let alone get life in prison.

Additionally, I am wholly sickened by the father of the girl who was murdered who seems to think this guy going to jail is justice. It only lends further credence to my opinion that relatives and close friends of the victims should never be allowed to testify in court cases unless they are witnesses to the crime. The whole "look at what a wonderful person was killed" schtick is completely unrelated to the carriage of justice, and the sheer number of people who cry for blood as justice is horrifying.

Edit: Ack, forgot about NYT.com restrictions. I'll see if I can find a free link.

[Verily]

Better yet, here's the article itself:



By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: December 4, 2007

CRAWFORDVILLE, Fla. — Early in the morning of March 10, 2003, after a raucous party that lasted into the small hours, a groggy and hungover 20-year-old named Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend. That decision, prosecutors later said, was tantamount to murder.

The friend used the car to drive three men to the Pensacola home of a marijuana dealer, aiming to steal a safe. The burglary turned violent, and one of the men killed the dealer’s 18-year-old daughter by beating her head in with a shotgun he found in the home.

Mr. Holle was a mile and a half away, but that did not matter.

He was convicted of murder under a distinctively American legal doctrine that makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like burglaries, rapes and robberies.

Mr. Holle, who had given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted of first-degree murder. He is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Wakulla Correctional Institution here, 20 miles southwest of Tallahassee.

A prosecutor explained the theory to the jury at Mr. Holle’s trial in Pensacola in 2004. “No car, no crime,” said the prosecutor, David Rimmer. “No car, no consequences. No car, no murder.”

Most scholars trace the doctrine, which is an aspect of the felony murder rule, to English common law, but Parliament abolished it in 1957. The felony murder rule, which has many variations, generally broadens murder liability for participants in violent felonies in two ways. An unintended killing during a felony is considered murder under the rule. So is, as Mr. Holle learned, a killing by an accomplice.

India and other common law countries have followed England in abolishing the doctrine. In 1990, the Canadian Supreme Court did away with felony murder liability for accomplices, saying it violated “the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender.”

Countries outside the common law tradition agree. “The view in Europe,” said James Q. Whitman, a professor of comparative law at Yale, “is that we hold people responsible for their own acts and not the acts of others.”

But prosecutors and victims’ rights groups in the United States say that punishing accomplices as though they had been the actual killers is perfectly appropriate.

“The felony murder rule serves important interests,” said Mr. Rimmer, the prosecutor in the Holle case, “because it holds all persons responsible for the actions of each other if they are all participating in the same crime.”

Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group, said “all perpetrators of the underlying felony, not just the one who pulls the trigger” should be held accountable for murder.

“A person who has chosen to commit armed robbery, rape or kidnapping has chosen to do something with a strong possibility of causing the death of an innocent person,” Mr. Scheidegger said. “That choice makes it morally justified to convict the person of murder when that possibility happens.”

About 16 percent of homicides in 2006 occurred during felonies, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Statistics concerning how many of those killings led to the murder prosecutions of accomplices are not available, but legal experts say such prosecutions are relatively common in the more than 30 states that allow them. About 80 people have been sentenced to death in the last three decades for participating in a felony that led to a murder though they did not kill anyone.

Terry Snyder, whose daughter Jessica was the victim in Mr. Holle’s case, said Mr. Holle’s conduct was as blameworthy as that of the man who shattered her skull.

“It never would have happened unless Ryan Holle had lent the car,” Mr. Snyder said. “It was as good as if he was there.”

Prosecutors sometimes also justify the doctrine on the ground that it deters murders. Criminals who know they will face harsh punishment if someone dies in the course of a felony, supporters of the felony murder rule say, may plan their crimes with more care, may leave deadly weapons at home and may decide not to commit the underlying felony at all.

But the evidence of a deterrent effect is thin. An unpublished analysis of F.B.I. crime data from 1970 to 1998 by Anup Malani, a law professor at the University of Chicago, found that the presence of the felony murder rule had a relatively small effect on criminal behavior, reducing the number of deaths during burglaries and car thefts slightly, not affecting deaths during rapes and, perversely, increasing the number of deaths during robberies. That last finding, the study said, “is hard to explain” and “warrants further exploration.”

The felony murder rule’s defenders acknowledge that it can be counterintuitive.

“It may not make any sense to you,” Mr. Rimmer, the prosecutor in Mr. Holle’s case, told the jury. “He has to be treated just as if he had done all the things the other four people did.”

Prosecutors sought the death penalty for Charles Miller Jr., the man who actually killed Jessica Snyder, but he was sentenced to life without parole. So were the men who entered the Snyders’ home with him, Donnie Williams and Jermond Thomas. So was William Allen Jr., who drove the car. So was Mr. Holle.

Mr. Holle had no criminal record. He had lent his car to Mr. Allen, a housemate, countless times before.

“All he did was go say, ‘Use the car,’ ” Mr. Allen said of Mr. Holle in a pretrial deposition. “I mean, nobody really knew that girl was going to get killed. It was not in the plans to go kill somebody, you know.”

But Mr. Holle did testify that he had been told it might be necessary to “knock out” Jessica Snyder. Mr. Holle is 25 now, a tall, lean and lively man with a rueful sense of humor, alert brown eyes and an unusually deep voice. In a spare office at the prison here, he said that he had not taken the talk of a burglary seriously.

“I honestly thought they were going to get food,” he said of the men who used his car, all of whom had attended the nightlong party at Mr. Holle’s house, as had Jessica Snyder.

“When they actually mentioned what was going on, I thought it was a joke,” Mr. Holle added, referring to the plan to steal the Snyders’ safe. “I thought they were just playing around. I was just very naïve. Plus from being drinking that night, I just didn’t understand what was going on.”

Mr. Holle’s trial lawyer, Sharon K. Wilson, said the statements he had given to the police were the key to the case, given the felony murder rule.

“It’s just draconian,” Ms. Wilson said. “The worst thing he was guilty of was partying too much and not being discriminating enough in who he was partying with.”

Mr. Holle’s trial took one day. “It was done, probably, by 5 o’clock,” Mr. Holle said. “That’s with the deliberations and the verdict and the sentence.”

Witnesses described the horror of the crime. Christine Snyder, for instance, recalled finding her daughter, her head bashed in and her teeth knocked out.

“Then what did you do?” the prosecutor asked her.

“I went screaming out of the home saying they blew my baby’s face off,” Ms. Snyder said.

The safe had belonged to Christine Snyder. The police found a pound of marijuana in it, and, after her daughter’s funeral, she was sentenced to three years in prison for possessing it.

Not every state’s version of the felony murder rule is as strict as Florida’s, and a few states, including Hawaii, Kentucky and Michigan, have abolished it entirely.

“The felony-murder rule completely ignores the concept of determination of guilt on the basis of individual misconduct,” the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in 1980.

The vast majority of states retain it in various forms, but courts and officials have taken occasional steps to limit its harshest applications.

In August, for instance, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas commuted the death sentence of Kenneth Foster, the driver of a getaway car in a robbery spree that ended in a murder.

Mr. Holle was the only one of the five men charged with murdering Jessica Snyder who was offered a plea bargain, one that might have led to 10 years in prison.

“I did so because he was not as culpable as the others,” said Mr. Rimmer, the prosecutor.

Mr. Holle, who rejected the deal, has spent some time thinking about the felony murder rule.

“The laws that they use to convict people are just — they have to revise them,” he said. “Just because I lent these guys my car, why should I be convicted the same as these people that actually went to the scene of the crime and actually committed the crime?”

Mr. Rimmer sounded ambivalent on this point.

“Whether or not the felony murder rule can result in disproportionate justice is a matter of opinion,” Mr. Rimmer said. “The father of Jessica Snyder does not think so.”

[Gabu]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been blameless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

[Verily]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

[Gabu]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

[Gabu]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

It also said that he thought it was a joke, and that he was drunk and not really fully aware of what was going on.

[Јas]

[MODU]

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

Yes, he should have been charged with a lesser crime.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

It also said that he thought it was a joke, and that he was drunk and not really fully aware of what was going on.

If it was a joke, where did he think the car was going?

[Verily]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

It also said that he thought it was a joke, and that he was drunk and not really fully aware of what was going on.

If it was a joke, where did he think the car was going?

“I honestly thought they were going to get food,”

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

It also said that he thought it was a joke, and that he was drunk and not really fully aware of what was going on.

If it was a joke, where did he think the car was going?

“I honestly thought they were going to get food,”

Doesn't matter - he still needs to be charged w/ something.

[Verily]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

It also said that he thought it was a joke, and that he was drunk and not really fully aware of what was going on.

If it was a joke, where did he think the car was going?

“I honestly thought they were going to get food,”

Doesn't matter - he still needs to be charged w/ something.

Explain why.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The decisions you make while drunk are in no way mitigated by the fact that you are drunk.

The headline here makes the whole thing seem sensational, but it is entirely possible that this situation would have turned out differently had the involved party not been drinking.

While I don't necessarily believe that life in prison is the correct sentence for his level of complicity, some jail time, perhaps on the order of years, is definitely in order.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is there any evidence that the guy was aware of what was going to happen?

If there is, I think he should have been charged with at least something, but if there wasn't, this guy should have been faultless, unless we're now supposed to ask everyone "now you aren't going to murder someone with this, right?" before we lend them something.

The article says that he was drunk when he lent the car and had some inkling that a robbery might happen but thought it was a joke. The very fact that he was drunk should be enough to remove him from culpability just for lending a car. (Drinking would clearly be no excuse for being a part of the robbery itself, but lending a car is much less malign decision.)

In that case, no, I would not have convicted him for anything.

The article said he confessed to knowing about the burglary.  Thus - charge him with breaking and entering - maybe assault, not murder.

It also said that he thought it was a joke, and that he was drunk and not really fully aware of what was going on.

If it was a joke, where did he think the car was going?

“I honestly thought they were going to get food,”

Doesn't matter - he still needs to be charged w/ something.

Explain why.

Because at the point that there a drunk people joking about going around robbing somebody - you need to be punished for those actions - like Mr. Moderate said - he wasn't in clear mind to think "hey maybe this is a bad idea" - thus he needs to be punished.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He passed up a 10-year plea deal - I feel much less sorry for him now.

[Verily]

He passed up a 10-year plea deal - I feel much less sorry for him now.

Because ten years would have been an appropriate sentence, let alone plea deal.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He passed up a 10-year plea deal - I feel much less sorry for him now.

Because ten years would have been an appropriate sentence, let alone plea deal.

10 years was good - and how did he figure he would get away with it?  And I kinda missed what you meant by "let alone plea deal."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whether he truly thought that the talk about a burglary was a joke was a fact for the jury to decide.  If they thought he was lying, then he was guilty of being an accomplice before the fact and thus liable for the murder.  Also the question of whether he was drunk enough to be incapacitated in reasoning is another issue for the jury to consider, but only if the burglary was not something mentioned to him prior to him becoming drunk.  If he willingly became drunk in the company of people he knew were planning a burglary then I see no difference between that and someone who plans to drive someplace after drinking to excess as far as whether being drunk exonerates a defendant.

Since the article doesn't present the entirety of the testimony and evidence, I can't judge whether the punishment was appropriate, but it could be given the facts available.

[Gabu]

He passed up a 10-year plea deal - I feel much less sorry for him now.

Uh, yeah, because he felt he hadn't done anything wrong and that he shouldn't get any jail time.  It's like telling an innocent person "well, if you confess to the murder, you can maybe get off easy".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He passed up a 10-year plea deal - I feel much less sorry for him now.

Uh, yeah, because he felt he hadn't done anything wrong and that he shouldn't get any jail time.  It's like telling an innocent person "well, if you confess to the murder, you can maybe get off easy".

I can feel like it's ok to do drugs because I'm a Libertarian, but a smart Libertarian would plead guilty to the charges.

[Gabu]

He passed up a 10-year plea deal - I feel much less sorry for him now.

Uh, yeah, because he felt he hadn't done anything wrong and that he shouldn't get any jail time.  It's like telling an innocent person "well, if you confess to the murder, you can maybe get off easy".

I can feel like it's ok to do drugs because I'm a Libertarian, but a smart Libertarian would plead guilty to the charges.

He was charged with murder without having murdered anyone.  He felt that was retarded and decided to pursue it in court rather than simply going with the flow.  That's how you get laws overturned in court; nothing has ever happened by a person simply accepting a charge and saying "yes sir" to everyone.

The fact that he could have gotten "only" ten years had he admitted to a crime he didn't feel he had committed does not diminish the absurdity of this sentence one iota.

[7,052,770]

although I don't have all the facts, from the facts I do have this appears to be a terrible injustice that will surely be overturned

[Beet]

Whether he truly thought that the talk about a burglary was a joke was a fact for the jury to decide.  If they thought he was lying, then he was guilty of being an accomplice before the fact and thus liable for the murder.

Also the question of whether he was drunk enough to be incapacitated in reasoning is another issue for the jury to consider, but only if the burglary was not something mentioned to him prior to him becoming drunk.  If he willingly became drunk in the company of people he knew were planning a burglary then I see no difference between that and someone who plans to drive someplace after drinking to excess as far as whether being drunk exonerates a defendant.

Since the article doesn't present the entirety of the testimony and evidence, I can't judge whether the punishment was appropriate, but it could be given the facts available.

If they thought he was lying, even if they thought he had fully decided upon being an accomplice to a burglary before he started drinking, and even if they thought this beyond a reasonable doubt, then he is at most still an accomplice to only burglary. There was no claim made of an intent to commit murder. That is the central issue:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The strongest argument in favor of holding one such as himself liable for murder, IMO, is the deterrent argument. Even then, there is a clash between social utility and individual justice. Yet the article notes that there is little evidence for a deterrent effect.

It is interesting that Gary Leon Ridgway, who admitted to the murders of nearly 50 women in the Seattle area over a span of 20 years, received a punishment of life in prison without parole. Now, given that there is no cap to the scale of criminal damages that may be done, but there is a cap on which civilized society should be able to punish criminals, and there are good arguments as to why that cap should stop before death's doorstep, I do not necessarily protest the punishment given to Mr. Ridgway or that those who murdered fewer people might be given the same sentence. Still, it is remarkable enough to point out. The court's judgement in this case gives the exact same punishment to Mr. Holle, who was at most accessory to burglary, as to Mr. Ridgway, confessed as one of our most prolific serial murderers. If one values consistency as a hallmark of a strong justice and legal system, then there is certainly something imperfect about the American system as it stands today.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whether he truly thought that the talk about a burglary was a joke was a fact for the jury to decide.  If they thought he was lying, then he was guilty of being an accomplice before the fact and thus liable for the murder.

Also the question of whether he was drunk enough to be incapacitated in reasoning is another issue for the jury to consider, but only if the burglary was not something mentioned to him prior to him becoming drunk.  If he willingly became drunk in the company of people he knew were planning a burglary then I see no difference between that and someone who plans to drive someplace after drinking to excess as far as whether being drunk exonerates a defendant.

Since the article doesn't present the entirety of the testimony and evidence, I can't judge whether the punishment was appropriate, but it could be given the facts available.

If they thought he was lying, even if they thought he had fully decided upon being an accomplice to a burglary before he started drinking, and even if they thought this beyond a reasonable doubt, then he is at most still an accomplice to only burglary. There was no claim made of an intent to commit murder.

Intent is at best difficult and at times impossible to determine as it requires judges and juries to delve inside someone's skull and divine their intent.  One can easily determine whether certain actions were undertaken, and under the law applicable in this case, that was all that the prosecution had to prove.  They had no obligation to prove intent and thus trying to prove it would have been bad lawyering on their part.  One can argue that they should have to prove intent, indeed that is the argument you are making, but to infer from the fact that the prosecution didn't try to prove something they didn't have to prove that the something was false is bad logic.

In any case, I despise the use of intent as a factor in criminal law.  It makes decisions far too dependent on subjective opinion rather than objective fact.  Judge defendants by what they do, not by what they intended to do, or even how successful they were at accomplishing their task.  Why should we reward incompetence by assigning a lesser sentence to attempted murder than to a successful murder?