In 1995, Brandon Hein was an 18-year-old boy in California. He and three friends were out cruising around and drinking. They went to buy marijuana from two other boys in the neighborhood. They got into an argument and one of Brandon’s friends pulled a knife and stabbed 16-year-old Jimmy Farris, who bled to death.
Photo from Brandon's MySpace
A jury convicted Brandon of attempted robbery and, under California’s felony-murder rule, also of murder. He was given the same sentence as the boy who committed the murder - life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In 2009, Brandon’s sentence was reduced to 29 years to life with a chance of parole. Under California’s sentencing laws, 85% of a sentence must be served before becoming eligible for parole. For Brandon, that means he must serve another 10 years before appearing before the parole board.
What do you think of the felony-murder rule? Basically, it says that anyone can be charged with murder if someone dies during the commission of a felony, even if you’re not the triggerman. Does it make sense or is it cruel and unusual punishment? Do you think it is a deterrent to crime? Why or why not?
For more about Brandon’s life and YouTube interviews, see: http://www.myspace.com/freebrandonhein
For more about the Felony-Murder rule, see: http://askthejudge.info/what-does-the-felony-murder-rule-mean/2955/
Find help now!
www.TroubledTeensWizard.com
Popularity: 2% [?]
The case of Brandon Hein is further evidence that collective attribution of guilt/crime is an abdication of individual value and a blurring of personal responsibility. Why is a whole group responsible for the act of a single person? As in Brandon Hein’s case involving a backyard brawl with teenagers over marijuana, where one individual chose to use a pocket knife that ended tragically. The other individuals, including Brandon Hein, never gave consent to such an act. The ‘blame game’ is just as stupid if you set the person free that did it because the rest of the group didn’t do it: collective innocence!!! Perfect justice is to require personal responsibility for the deed by the killer. Every other person cannot be blamed! It is fundamentally unfair and in violation of basic principles of individual criminal culpability to hold one felon liable for the unseen and un agreed-to results of another felon’s action. The felony murder rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, more specifically, equal protection of the law, because no defense is allowed on the charge of first-degree murder, only the underlying felony. The felony murder rule is unconstitutional because the presumption of innocence is thrown out. The prosecutor must only prove intent to commit the original felony; once done, first degree murder attaches to the underlying felony even though intent, to commit murder does not have to be proved. The felony murder rule is unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment: cruel and unusual punishment, grossly disproportionate sentencing to the crime(s) actually committed. California is one of only eight states in the United States that still recognizes and practices an ancient law brought over from England in the 1700’s called the Felony Murder Rule (FMR). This little known, yet controversial law has been declared unconstitutional in the other 42 states of the United States, as well as every democratic country in the free world including England where it originated. But here in the State of California, it is alive and well. This is America – not North Korea. Collectivist injustice is not Constitutional justice. Brandon Hein’s case should not need to go all the way to the US Supreme Court. If it does, those who do participate in or reject their opportunity to act responsibly bring shame on us all. Our California Governor should do the heroic thing. Will he? We’ll see….
The Murder-Felony Rule has already been brought before the Supreme Court. In Enmund v. Florida (1982) the court ruled:”Neither deterrence of capital crimes nor retribution is a sufficient justification for executing petitioner. It is unlikely that the threat of the death penalty will measurably deter one, such as petitioner, who does not intend to kill. As to retribution, this depends on the degree of petitioner’s culpability, which must be limited to the robbery.”
While most SC decisions are deemed to be precedent setting; this one has been ignored on numerous occasions since 1982. The murderer of 6 year old Dae’von Bailey (also in CA) has been charged with 2nd degree murder. Under CA law; the mandatory sentence is 15 yrs. to life for his crime. Disgusting! The concept of the punishment befitting the crime has obviously not been factored into Brandon’s case. If this is not a violation of the 8th Amendment, then I am unable to fathom what could be.