Replies

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Or at least being too simplistic -- the law is not simple. That's why lawyers go to school for 3 years and then have to practice for awhile before they know very much. When you're on trial for your life, you grasp at every straw, and this problem was dealt with almost 400 years ago.

The doyen of English common-law, Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke (and that's pronounced "cook" - usual English muddle about names), 1552-1634, gave this definition:

There must be, lst. Sound mind and memory in the agent. By this is understood there must be a will, and legal discretion. 2. An actual killing, but it is not necessary that it should be caused by direct violence; it is sufficient if the acts done apparently endanger life, and are eventually fatal. (Emphasis supplied.)

It's not an exaggeration to say that Coke's writings (which glossed and expanded on those of 15th c. judge Sir Thomas Littleton) were the foundation of English common law, which is of course the foundation of our system.

So except to the extent that judges in England were also "politicians" (and they always are, to some extent), it was the judges who made the English common law who came up with a definition of murder that includes felony-murder.

That's impressive, interesting, and informative research! You've taken the debate to the Supreme Court level. If the tradition is 400 years old then it's certainly valid.

For murdering a thug maybe they should get some kind of penalty reduction for lowering community costs and strife.