File this one as entry #345975, under problems with the American legal system.
Probably you saw this story about Ryan Holle. Holle is 25 and he's serving life without possibility of parole. Why? Because five years ago, he lent his car to a friend. The friend drove off without him, picked up three other guys, and they broke into a house and ended up killing someone in the house. Under a principle of law that has been discarded by, for example, England, India, and Canada, Holle was convicted as an accomplice.
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."
My question: If this thinking is to be consistent, why can't gun manufacturers be sued for crimes committed with their products?
3 comments:
Well to my mind the question is: did they guy lend them the car with the intent of committing the crime? Because intent makes a difference. If I know you're going to run off and shoot someone and I still lend you my gun, then yes, I should be held accountable.
But not for murder. I think the real WTF is the law that makes accomplices just as liable as the actual killers. What's up with that? (He says wondering if the same rule applies in his own country...)
As I understand it the idea behind the law is that if, say, 4 guys decide to hold up the local market and break in with guns and the owner resists and one of them shoots him the other three can say I didn't shoot him it was this other crazy guy and I would never do something like that. So if you all conspired together to commit a crime then you're all responsible for the results of that crime whether you were the actual one who pulled the trigger or were just one one of the others in the gang and didn't actually pull the trigger. So if you get together with others and conspire (which means to breathe together) to commit a crime you're all equally responsible for the results of the crime. Otherwise the guy who drove the car is not guilty because all he did was drive a car which isn't illegal. Another guy is only guilty of breaking the lock which is just a misdemeanor. Another guy is only guilty of taking the money out of the till. And, of course, they all swear they would never shoot someone and it was an accident rather than a deliberate killing.
So a gang breaks into your store and robs you and kills you and all they're guilty of is a series of little misdemeanors? That doesn't seem right either.
The answer to your question is pretty obvious, Brendan: While the National Rifle Association wields a hugely persuasive double-barrelled-shotgun of a lobbying operation, the Nation Ryan Holle Association is comparatively without access to institutional power.
Post a Comment