The Instigator
Curci
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Revoke the Felony Murder Rule

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,212 times Debate No: 53138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Curci

Pro

The felony murder rule is an aggressive, very harmful rule that states "If an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony." This allows for people who did not murder anyone to be charged with murder, simply for being a getaway driver or a partner in crime. That is very destructive and puts the burden of responsibility on people who did not commit any crimes. Please accept this debate for a very fun time. Thanks.
Ragnar

Con

(Opponent quotes in bold. Source quotes in italics. Sources numbered continuously between rounds)

After talking to pro via PM, and given him adequate time to modify his opening case, I accept the challenge.

Opening Argument:
The Felony Murder Rule (henceforth FMR) is vital to upholding order.

Understanding the rule
According to the Cornell University Law School, FMR at common law only applies to “burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping” [1]. The high likelihood of these crimes leading to death, speaks for itself.

It closes loopholes
Without FMR a rapist who accidently kills the victim, would have just gotten rid of the witness without facing additional charges. Planned murders would be harder to prove, as the criminals (if caught) could claim a lesser crime ‘just got out of control.’ Kidnappers who accidently forget to feed their hostage, would face no additional charge for that murder, and (as with the case of the rapist) have one less witness as evidence against them in the lesser crime. Robbery with threat of deadly force, having the gun accidently go off… Need I continue?

Rebuttals:
“the offender can be charged with murder”
As pro has stated, the law in question does not force the prosecutor to charge for murder, it merely gives them the option to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

“simply for being a getaway driver or a partner in crime.”
To be the getaway driver for a crime, implies knowledge of the intended crime, and direct voluntary involvement in the execution thereof. To partner with a violently unstable individual for criminal activity, seems likely to lead to someone dying. FMR aids avoidance of said ruthless criminal, as them randomly killing people during a crime, may land extra punishment for those who partnered with them and assisted them in those crimes… Even if that assistance was just keeping the car running to help them make a speedy escape afterward.

“puts the burden of responsibility on people who did not commit any crimes”
Simply untrue. As the name implies, in order for the FMR to be applied to someone, they must have been committing a felony to begin with.

Sources:
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
Curci

Pro

Curci forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Curci

Pro

Curci forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Curci

Pro

Curci forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Curci

Pro

Sorry I keep forfeiting, I've been very busy lately. I thank you very much for accepting this debate, but I feel you have effectively refuted me. :) Good debating.
Ragnar

Con

Apology accepted.

Voters: Please award pro conduct for concession.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
I'd take Pro on this in future if you want to debate it again.... I think the felony murder rule is stupid.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Now that the debate is over...

There are some actual valid problems with the FMR, such as death sentences from more mild cases of it, and it being occasionally applied for the death of a partner in crime (accidentally leading someone to their death, sounds more fitting of manslaughter). It's also pretty much something that should never have a minor tried as an adult over, since the idea of not being able to vote yet, is your judgement is weaker than an actual recognized adult.

However as far as I know it has never been applied to members of corporations (ones who had knowing involvement in crimes), which accidentally repeatedly killed people in furtherance of said crimes (GM, ENRON, etc).
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Could you source that quote? Also, which specific Felony Murder Rule are you talking about, or are you addressing them in the broad context? If it's the latter, what's your BOP, and what's your opponent's? Is it sufficient for Con to show examples where certain uses of the Felony Murder Rule have been effective, or must a potential opponent go further?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Interested, however my win ratio would make this highly unfair.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
CurciRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
CurciRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
CurciRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and concession. Nice of Pro to say something in the last round, though.