Substrate Record: qid 1427

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1427 · law

Question: A man participated in a bank robbery as the driver of the getaway vehicle. The other conspirators assured him there would be no injuries or killings, but while in the bank they killed two people. Pursuant to the state's felony murder rule, the getaway driver was convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. After exhausting his appeals, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. He argued that he did not intend to kill and was not even present. What is the most likely holding of the Supreme Court?

1. The defendant's lack of intent to kill makes the application of the death penalty unconstitutional.
2. The Supreme Court cannot interfere with a state's application of the felony murder rule.
3. The felony murder rule is constitutional, but the defendant's execution is not justified in this case.
4. The felony murder rule is unconstitutional and the defendant's conviction must be reversed.
5. The defendant's role as a getaway driver does not justify a first degree murder charge.
6. The Eighth Amendment does not protect the defendant from execution in felony murder cases.
7. The defendant cannot be held responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators.
8. It is constitutional for a state to authorize the execution of an individual who participates in a robbery in which another robber takes life.
9. A conviction of first degree murder justifies the execution as long as aggravating circumstances are found to exist.
10. The execution of the defendant constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and cannot be allowed.

Our answer: J. The execution of the defendant constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and cannot be allowed. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer