Nemeth: Hypothetical
First degree murder is a criminal homicide that involves murder of first degree when it is undertaken by an intentional process. Hence to be guilty of murder in this degree, one has to have an explicit objective in their mind to lead to the death an individual. Contrastingly, second degree one is involved in an activity that places another individual in danger of death or body harm (Gardner, & Anderson, 2012). Hence, for one to be guilty he or she has to be aware of the threat he causes to others.
Indirect role to a murder is based on strict liability as a form of culpability. Here a person is held responsible without regard to his mental state; the person is held responsible (Doskow, 2011). A good example is in a felony murder where the prosecution proves beyond doubt that one commits a felony that leads to death, one is taken to be liable for the murder and the prosecution is not required to show evidence of any normal culpability necessary for murder.
Get-away drivers are charged for first degree murders as they too are held responsible or culpable for deaths occurred with no regard to who caused it. This takes into consideration the role they played. Get away drivers are part of the group that conspires to cause harm to others that results to death. They after the murder aid in getting away from the scene of crime (Daniel, 2009). No additional evidence is required to prove to the court that the defendant is guilty as the conspiracy is present.
A get-away driver of an armed robbery to a bank that aids an accomplice to undertake a crime can be charged and sentenced for first degree murder after an accomplice kills a teller. Evidence used to prove the murder of the teller by the murderer could be used on the get-away driver as a first degree murder in the frame of provocative-act murder doctrine. This takes into consideration the indirect role played by the driver.
The actus reus of the actions of the driver is through participation. In criminal law, the get-away driver can be held accountable for perpetrating an illegal act or aid the act. For one to be held responsible, the have to be aware of the unlawful act of the perpetrator or help them in crime (Schmalleger, 2009). The murder and driver are principals in the crime and can be held culpable for murder. Additionally, he can be held liable for shooting even though he is in the vehicle.
Mens Rea is the state of mind or guilty mind of the get-away driver in the crime that would lead to conviction. According to the Model Penal Code, there are four types; there is purpose, knowledge, recklessness and negligence (Samaha, 2010). The General Intent like a get-away driver in a robbery constitutes a crime. This is since the criminal is well aware of the crime in process and he or she is playing a role in aiding in it.
Generally, get-away driver is liable for both murder and robbery committed. In regards to murder, recklessness is attributed as the driver is well aware of the probable adverse implication the planned criminal activities, though decides to continue with it. He is then held responsible for the harm on others. For robbery he is liable for participating and not stopping the act or report it to the authorities. This lies on the act of conspiracy to commit the offence.
The conceptual basis of the felony murder rule arises from the transferred intent, it is much older when compared to the legal memory (Gardner, & Anderson, 2012). In its prior form, the cruel intent inherent in the undertaking of any crime, with no regard to how small it is, is termed to be used on any consequences of the offense irrespective if it was intentional. According to Hawkins, spite was implicit in an offense that leads to quarrels. The rule hence goes to include felonies.
First degree murder law varies from one country to country, it involves the murder that is intentionally and planned with the help of felonies like robbery or death or use of some people or weapons. The model for this level of murder are established in varied states by the US Code in federal prosecutions (Doskow, 2011). Hence, this level of murder requires proof of intentional murder for it to be effected. It varies from the second level which premeditation is not present.
Murder, according to criminal law, takes both direct and indirect roles. They arise on the basis of strict liability as a form of culpability where an individual can be held responsible inconsiderate of direct involvement. An instance is in a felony murder where the prosecution proves beyond doubt that one commits a felony that leads to death, one is taken to be liable for the murder and the prosecution is not required to show evidence of any normal culpability necessary for murder.
Get-away drivers according to criminal law are held responsible for any murder or robber that takes place. This takes into consideration the role they play while the crime is being committed; they aid in the escaping of criminals or act as accomplices to crime (Schmalleger, 2011). Additionally, they are considered to be aware of a criminal act and did not do anything to aid in their arrest. They are hence charged for hindering the capture of the murderers by keeping vital information.
The get-away driver of an armed robbery to a bank who helps in the carrying out of a crime can be charged and sentenced for first degree murder after an accomplice kills a teller. The evidence used to prove the murder of the teller by the murderer could be used by the get-away driver as a first degree murder in the frame of provocative-act murder doctrine. Additionally, the driver is well aware of the crime and is culpable for any murder.
Actus reus of the role played by the driver can be termed to as participation. Criminal law states that the get-away driver are held accountable for undertaking a criminal act or facilitate the completion of the act. The responsible of the get-away driver is used as he or she is well aware of the unlawful act of the perpetrator or facilitate a crime (Schmalleger, 2009). The murder and driver are principals in the crime and can be termed to as culpable for murder. Moreover, the driver can be held liable for murder even though he remained in the car.
The Mens Rea, the state of mind or guilty mind of the get-away driver while facilitating or undertaking the crime. This can be used for conviction of the driver. In reference to the Model Penal Code, there are of varied types; there is an objective, awareness, recklessness and negligence (Schmalleger, 2011). The General Intent in regards to the get-away driver in a robbery constitutes a crime. This involves the role of the criminal considering he or she is well aware of the crime in place and the role played.
The get-away driver is held culpable for murder and robbery committed. This disregards their indirect role in the crime. As for murder, recklessness is used as he or she is well aware of the probable adverse impact of the planned criminal activities, he however opts to continue with it. He is then held responsible for the harm that may arise (Daniel, 2009). As for robbery he is held culpable for getting involved and not hindering or reporting it. This lies on the act of conspiracy to commit the offence.
The conceptual basis of the felony murder rule is based on transferred intent, it is much older in comparison to the legal memory. Its prior form has it that the cruel intent present in undertaking of any crime, disregard to how small it is, can be said to be used on any consequences of the crime regardless if it was intentional (Samaha, 2010). According to Hawkins, spite was implicit in an offense that leads to quarrels. The rule hence goes to include felonies.
References
Daniel E. Hall (2009). Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Doskow, E. (2011). Nolo’s Encyclopedia of Everyday Criminal law. Berkeley: Nolo Publishing.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2012). Criminal Law: 11th Edition. Mason,Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Samaha, J. (2010). Criminal Law. Connecticut: Cengage.
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century, 10th edition. Boston: Prentice Hall Publishing Company.
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal Justice Today. Boston: Prentice Hall.
