The Elkhart 4 and the concept of "felony murder"

[Akhilleus]

A friend of mine, big Dr. Phil fan, told me of a story she saw while watching the show. They discussed the case of the Elkhart 4. Four Indiana teens who were charged with what the state of Indiana calls "felony murder". But the big catch here is that they didn't actually kill anyone.

From what I read the five young men (Ages 21, 19, two 18, and 17) had ditched school, and had broken into a house. It was the middle of the day, and they did not have weapons. None the less breaking and entering is certainly a punishable crime, but what happened next would only be the beginning of that punishment. The owner of the house had awoken to the noise of the teens entering, grabbed his gun, and shot the 21 year old, killing him. According to Indiana law, it is self defense, but that doesn't mean there won't be a murder charge. Was it the homeowner who was charged? No, it was the four other teens involved in the crime. All four were charged as adults. Three of them were sentenced to over 50 years in prison, while a third was sentenced to 45. Felony Murder is what the state calls it, and it isn't just Indiana. From what I've read, 46 states in the USA have a felony murder rule. Felony murder makes any participant in a crime liable for any deaths that occur. So even though that 21 year old, likely even the leader of that group of teens, made the decision to enter that house himself, the other four were not only held accountable for his death but also put away for the rest of their lives because of it.

When my friend told me of this story I actually didn't believe here. I had to look it up myself, because to me it sounds unconstitutional. Now don't get me wrong I am not defending these four teenagers for what they've done. They committed a crime and they should be punished for it, but how they are being held liable for the death of the 21 year old does seem right to me. And how it can have that serious of a sentence is even worse. A driver can get intoxicated and kill someone in a car accident and they'll be charged with manslaughter. But three young men can be charged with what they call felony murder and be put away for fifty years. There is a fine line between breaking and entering, and murder.

Has anyone else heard this story of the Elkhart 4? What about the concept of Felony Murder? If a criminal gets killed committing the crime does that mean the other criminals involved should be charged with murder, even though they did not have any intent or even involvement in their death? It would be one thing if the 21 year old was forced to go into the house, but he wasn't. He made the decision by himself, all of them did. But they didn't shoot him, they didn't influence or organize his death, it was just a robbery of a house they thought was empty gone wrong. Is felony murder constitutional? At least in this situation?

Look this story up for yourself if you haven't heard of it before, look up the concept of felony murder. Tell me what you think about it, because I am extremely curious to see if I'm the only one who thinks there is something wrong with it.

 

[Slash-LN]

I don't agree with this at all.
They're basically being charged because they knew the risks of what could happen but still went into the home anyway.
One of the teenagers didn't even go into the home according to the Huffington Post article I just read but he's still being sentenced to 50 years.

It seems like a really weird law to me. They should face the burglary charge and that's it.

The article I read pretty much said that kids could be punished under this law and the writer doesn't think they should be because they are more impulsive and may not consider the risks of what could happen.

Most of the articles and websites I looked at were biased towards the defendants but if that's all there is to the story then there's no way I would agree with it.

 

[Mustang Sally]

But they didn't shoot him, they didn't influence or organize his death....

I would imagine the thinking under the law is that they did influence the guy's death, in that no murder would have taken place had they not broken the law by entering the house in the first place. I'm not saying I agree with that interpretation or with the severity of the punishment, but I do agree with the idea that if a homeowner finds someone in his house in the middle of the night, he can expel them in any manner he sees fit.

As to the three would-be robbers who didn't pull the trigger, it's hard to feel any sympathy for them since they didn't have to invade the house in the first place.

 

[Akhilleus]

I would imagine the thinking under the law is that they did influence the guy's death, in that no murder would have taken place had they not broken the law by entering the house in the first place. I'm not saying I agree with that interpretation or with the severity of the punishment, but I do agree with the idea that if a homeowner finds someone in his house in the middle of the night, he can expel them in any manner he sees fit.

As to the three would-be robbers who didn't pull the trigger, it's hard to feel any sympathy for them since they didn't have to invade the house in the first place.

As far as the law goes the courts got it right, but at the same time I don't agree with the fact that they were all charged as adults even though a couple of them were young. At least one was under 18, and really I just don't agree with that half of the law in general. I get the purpose of felony murder, but when it is a co-conspirator that killed the other felons shouldn't be charged with it unless they're the ones who killed him.

None of them forced that 21 year old to go into the house, and if I had to bet money I would say that the 21 year old being the oldest was most likely the one who orchestrated the whole thing. Maybe convinced those high schoolers to skip school. Yes, it is hard to feel pity for them because they did knowingly commit a crime, but there is still a fine line between breaking and entering and murder. And for young adults to have their lives taken away for that one stupid decision gone entirely wrong does make me feel a little bit of pity.

A lot of states have different interpretations of the law, but I think Indiana and whatever states enforce it to the extent that they do should have it rewritten. Say they're robbing a bank, and they have weapons, and they shoot a security guard. That is felony murder to me. But if they break into a house they think is empty, with no weapons, and one of the intruders gets shot, it doesn't make any sense for the other intruders to get charged for that murder.

Hopefully though it does in fact prevent people, young and stupid teenagers and adults too, from making the decision of committing a felony.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

As far as the law goes the courts got it right, but at the same time I don't agree with the fact that they were all charged as adults even though a couple of them were young. At least one was under 18, and really I just don't agree with that half of the law in general.

Varying opinions aside on the 17 year old, once you turn 18, you're being charged as an adult. That's just plain law. There might be various exceptions or maybe even a few precedents otherwise. Maybe for the menatally handicapped, but otherwise anyone 18 or older is going to be charged as an adult, whatever the crime. Once you're not a minor, you're not being charged as a minor. Maybe I'm wrong...? If I am I'd need examples.

As for them being convicted for 50 years, it seems excessive to me. I would think they could make a case for criminal negligence, or negligent homicide, though. I believe that qualifies as 2nd degree murder. That in no way would render a 50 year imprisonment though.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The reason why many states are hesitant to repeal the felony murder rule is because its advantages are at the very least equal to its disadvantages. For instance, let's say that you, along with three accomplices, go to burgle the mansion of an elderly, borderline-senile hermit. Expecting her to be asleep when you enter the house, you find her reading a book in her study, which contains many valuable items that can be easily and quickly sold. The hermit starts to scream and gets up to call the police, but, in order to carry out your burglary, you tie her up and tape her mouth shut. Not knowing that she had a weak heart and not intending to kill her, you find the hermit dead after you have sufficiently ransacked the mansion and go back to free her.

In instances such as these, the felony murder rules allows states to prosecute such individuals for murder, and it is my moral opinion that this is the right thing to do. However, I am in full agreement that things get extremely complicated and morally fuzzy when it comes to the portion of the felony murder rule that allows surviving perpetrators to be held culpable for the death of another perpetrator that takes place at the hands of the felony's intended victim. Not only do I feel that adults should not be held responsible for the death of an accomplice in the commission of a felony, but my feelings of opposition are further accentuated in this case due to how young all of the criminals in this case are.

 

[Akhilleus]

Varying opinions aside on the 17 year old, once you turn 18, you're being charged as an adult. That's just plain law. There might be various exceptions or maybe even a few precedents otherwise. Maybe for the mentally handicapped, but otherwise anyone 18 or older is going to be charged as an adult, whatever the crime. Once you're not a minor, you're not being charged as a minor. Maybe I'm wrong...? If I am, I'd need examples.

As for them being convicted for 50 years, it seems excessive to me. I would think they could make a case for criminal negligence, or negligent homicide, though. I believe that qualifies as 2nd degree murder. That in no way would render a 50 year imprisonment, though.

No you're not wrong. The ones 18 and older should have been charged as adults, but the 17 year old isn't yet. And even with the 18 year olds, I can't remember if it was two 18 or one 18 and two 19, but even with that at least two of them were still in High School, still kids. Still making the same old stupid decisions as before. My father knew friends who were breaking into houses, in fact he had his house robbed. That's what those young punks do they make stupid decisions. Should they just be given a slap on the wrist? Definitely not, but to enforce a fifty year sentence on them is ridiculous. Like I pointed out the one killed was the oldest, and more likely than not he is the one who probably orchestrated the break in to begin with.

I am always a little disturbed when I hear more and more often that the DA and the courts are pushing to charge a minor as an adult. Even in the most severe cases I think if an 8 year old kills his parents or something, you don't put him in jail. You get him help. I think there are some rules where 14 is the lowest age that can be tried, but I have definitely heard stories where the DA would like to try kids younger than that as adults. Which I think is ridiculous. At that age if they're committing crimes that serious than they need help not prison sentence. Most kids around the age of 13 or maybe even a couple years older don't even fully understand all of their Miranda rights, or how court proceedings work, or that the defense lawyer is there to help them. Kids that young wouldn't understand that. I didn't even have a Government class until my Senior year of High School, and even then I don't think they gave us a detailed explanation of what all our rights were. Luckily I've known them, but I can see kids he wouldn't, or kids who are completely lost in that situation.

Are you telling me that 17 year old in the Elkhart 4 situation wasn't manipulated at all by arresting officers, or the District Attorney during court proceedings? They try to mix things up all the time with normal defendants, but when you have a young kid in there you know someone is going to take advantage of them in at least some way. I bet you just on the ride in the police car the arresting officers got some good words out of the kid before he knew that he should have shut his mouth and waited for his lawyer. I hope he didn't, but I don't even have to be there to know the police tried. That's their jobs.

Take this with a grain of salt, but according to Wikipedia, minors in an adult facility as opposed to a juvenile one are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted. Two times more likely to be beaten by staff, and 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide. And also youths who witness violence in their time are far less likely to not commit future crime. Is that what the goal of the justice system is? To get some 17 year old kid to kill himself before he reaches his next birthday? Or to get sexually assaulted by someone twice his size? What about a fourteen year old that is charged as an adult?

The US Justice System is slowly moving away from juvenile corrections. It seems like District Attorneys nowadays are more focused on getting another notch in their belt as opposed to seeing the right thing happen. They don't care if you're innocent or guilty they're going to use anything they have to put you away for as long as they can, without however many charges they can find to stack on you. It's all a big game nowadays. DAs vs Defense Attorneys. To them it's a win or a loss, but to someone else it's their entire life.

The reason why many states are hesitant to repeal the felony murder rule is because its advantages are at the very least equal to its disadvantages. For instance, let's say that you, along with three accomplices, go to burgle the mansion of an elderly, borderline-senile hermit. Expecting her to be asleep when you enter the house, you find her reading a book in her study, which contains many valuable items that can be easily and quickly sold. The hermit starts to scream and gets up to call the police, but, in order to carry out your burglary, you tie her up and tape her mouth shut. Not knowing that she had a weak heart and not intending to kill her, you find the hermit dead after you have sufficiently ransacked the mansion and go back to free her.

In instances such as these, the felony murder rules allows states to prosecute such individuals for murder, and it is my moral opinion that this is the right thing to do. However, I am in full agreement that things get extremely complicated and morally fuzzy when it comes to the portion of the felony murder rule that allows surviving perpetrators to be held culpable for the death of another perpetrator that takes place at the hands of the felony's intended victim. Not only do I feel that adults should not be held responsible for the death of an accomplice in the commission of a felony, but my feelings of opposition are further accentuated in this case due to how young all of the criminals in this case are.

Right, and I agree that in the situation you described with the hermit that they should be charged with felony murder. Mostly because they are the ones who tied the lady up. That lady wasn't an accomplice, and was not the one who decided to go rob someone's house.

But in the Elkhart 4 situation the four charged with murder are not the ones who killed their friend. Even though in both situations it was an accident, it can easily be seen that the first situation was at the fault of the intruders while the second situation was not.

So I most definitely agree with you that the accomplice part of the law should be abolished. Felony murder in itself is not even enforced in all states, and it's been abolished entirely in countries like England and Northern Ireland. If an innocent dies, then felony murder should be charged, but if it's an accomplice who knew exactly what the risks were that they were taking and that accomplice isn't killed directly by his other accomplices then I can't see how they can pin the murder on them. And at the very least if they do the sentence should be more similar to manslaughter, and not fifty plus years in jail.

 

[jameyt2003]

This sentencing and law is their to reinforce the idea that we should feel safe in our homes. Being a homeowner is a big investment and responsibility in our lives.

The sentence that was actually delivered will not do these boys any good because now they have their whole lives to be indoctrinated into a criminal mindset or just off themselves in prison.

Perhaps a more rehabilitating path would have been better.