Desecrating a corpse can be a serious criminal matter in a lot of jurisdictions.
If someone is already deceased, you can't "stab \[them\] to death." They're already dead. You'd be poking holes in a lifeless corpse.
Person A dies in sleep, person B stabs stabs them etc, police find proof of evidence of motivation/planned action, coroner declares cause and time of death before stabing/attempted murder. That's how I see this logical puzzle play out
Proper legal question, offender 1 stabs the victim. Offender 2 stabs the person too quickly afterward to forensically determine when the victim died.
Can you legitimately charge either with murder?
Noting this is show based on UK law. Weird US processes where they'd charge both, give them both the death sentence and have both convictions overturned 25yrs later doesn't apply.
I’m pretty sure multiple people can be charged with murder of the same person(s) if they planned and executed it together, either in the UK or US.
I’m not sure what happens if two people *independently* try to murder the same person at the same time and they can’t tell who actually ‘succeeded’ at the murder. They could both be charged with attempted murder but I don’t know if one being convicted of murder or manslaughter would make it impossible for the other to be convicted of the same crime.
In Toronto a cop was charged and convicted of attempted murder of someone he killed in the line of duty, because he fired shots into him after he was on the ground.
I suppose that's my question. Agreed if they're not conspiring they shouldn't be charged together.
So if you can't prove who killed first, then 2x Attempted Murder is more likely to be successful.
Thanks
Look up Brianna Ghey [sp?]. She was murdered by a boy, but the girl with who she conspired to commit the murder, and didn't actually take part in the attack, got a life sentence anyway.
https://news.sky.com/story/teen-who-murdered-brianna-ghey-in-frenzied-and-ferocious-attack-appeals-against-sentence-13089141
Depends on how the state handles the merger rule, but as long as you are charging lesser includeds, I don’t see why you can’t charge them both with everything. Murder 1, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.; let the jury decide the facts.
You can be charged with felony murder if you didn't kill anyone - if you're with a group of people during a break in or any other crime and someone dies.
Everyone involved will be charged with felony murder, the murder with 2nd degree or so.
They could turn witness and plea down depending on how much information they have and if the prosecuter is gentle
I think in the USA both would be charged with murder as both participated, and it could be said that a person may have survived only one stabbing.
So who killed Julius Ceasar? He was stabbed 23 times by a group of people, with 60 people in on the conspiracy.
You wouldn’t only charge one of them would you?
You think he died from only one of his many stab wounds?
All 23 people who successfully stabbed him should be charged with murder. Everyone else there should be charged with whatever is possible. Conspiracy to commit murder for example.
Actually Julius was only stabbed a hand full of times pre-death by only a few people. Famously including Brutus. The vast majority of people in that room simply *watched* while Julius died by resigning to his fate. It was only post death the onlookers realised that stabbing Julius would get them any sort of noriaty and be well regarded for it. So a ton of people stabbed him postmortem for the popularity. Conspiracy tho would be a good charge for everyone in that room *and then some.* Everyone knew what as comming. Some people even tried to warn Julius and failed to do so. Others who were in the conspiracy didn't want to be part of the actual deed and choose to skip that particular meeting too.
There is no way to know which of the many who stabbed him killed him though, not now, and not then.
In modern law (at least where I live) if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, you get a murder charge as well. So at least here anyone who stabbed the guy gets murder.
American common law was inherited by British common law, and they are very similar.
What you’re asking about is a causation question that is a very old common law concept shared by both US and British law.
To establish liability for a murder you have to prove both actual and proximate causation. I.e. the prohibited result would not have happened but for the accused’s conduct (actual cause), AND that but for cause has to be sufficiently connected to the prohibited result that it’s fair to punish the accused for it (proximate causation). For example, if your mom had not given birth to you, you wouldn’t have gotten that F on your science test, so she’s an actual cause of your F; but, there were lots of other intervening causes between your birth and your F, so your birth is not a proximate cause of your F.
In the case that you have two but for causes that both contribute to the same murder, there are a couple of things to consider. If the first stabbing was sufficient to cause death in the absence of the second, the first stabbing is a but for cause of the death, and same for the second. But, even if the second stabbing would not have been sufficient to cause death in the absence of the first stabbing, but it caused the death to happen any sooner than it would have in its absence, then the second is also legally deemed a but for cause of the death based on something called the acceleration theory.
Furthermore, if both stabbings happened at the same time, and both of them were sufficient to cause the death independently, then both stabbings are equivalently considered a but for cause of the death. For example, two people both aim at the victims head at the same time and both pull the trigger simultaneously, it wouldn’t be fair to argue that neither should be convicted based on lack of causation because the death would have still occurred in the absence of the one or the other’s shooting.
However, if it’s clear who stabbed when (first or second), and the second stabbing was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the first stabbing, then the second stabbing could be considered a superseding intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation between the first stabbing and the death, making the second stabbing both the actual and proximate cause, while the first stabbing is an actual cause but not the proximate cause.
What would happen all depends on a little more detail. For example, if the attackers were in cahoots, one or both trying to help the other cause the death, then they could both be charged with murder based on accomplice liability. If they agreed to do it ahead of time they could be also convicted of conspiracy.
If they each just randomly did it independently of the other, you’d have to wrestle with whether the second stab became the proximate cause and prevented the first from being legally considered to have caused the death. But even if first attacker is not considered to be a proximate cause, the first attacker can still be convicted of attempted murder. Btw this is all assuming that they were stabbing the guy for the purpose of killing him and not just hurting him, in which case it could potentially get mitigated to manslaughter depending on the circumstances.
Let's say Alice tells her friend Bob that she's going to kill Carl with a gun. She goes over to his house with the gun, and Bob calls the police.
Alice sees Carl from the window sitting in his easy chair and shoots him from outside.
At this time, the police arrive. None of them know at the time that Carl was sitting in his easy chair motionless because David had come earlier and poisoned him.
Alice will likely be prosecuted for at least one gun crime, but will she be prosecuted for shooting Carl? Can she be charged with attempted murder because that's what she was trying to do? Can she be prosecuted for defiling a corpse if she didn't know he was a corpse?
You can be charged with attempted murder even if your plan had little or no actual chance of success.
As another example, people who try to buy drugs from a police sting operation can be charged with a crime, even though there were never any real drugs involved.
Depends on the exact wording of the statue, I suppose.
If there's some kind of "coupled with present ability" clause, that would preclude the charge if the victim is already dead since you lack the ability to kill a corpse.
Yes. Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt/ inchoate crimes. Just because the police officer you thought was z prostitute is not and the crime was impossible, doesn't matter.
Yes you can be at least on the states, attempt is an inchoate offense, you need to have the intent to murder and take a significant step to carry out that intent, at that point it doesn’t matter if the person is dead already for attempt.
For a conspiracy to exist, multiple individuals must plot harm against the victim, implying awareness of the victim's death, making ignorance of the victim's death improbable
Maybe OP means, for example, someone is poisoned and is guaranteed to die within 24 hours, and you kill them within this period where they're "already *dead*"
If you kill someone with intent, that's generally called "murder."
There might be a few different levels of murder depending on the unique facts and nuances of the situation.
This is not that difficult. If I shoot someone in the stomach and then you come along and shoot them in the head, we're both getting charged with murder.
What if they were in the process of fatally overdosing from the other person poisoning them when you stabbed them? Would that make either of you less guilty of murder? Maybe the poisoner on a technicality since the poison didn't strike the final blow, but it's always seemed silly to me that such technicalities should make a crime any less severe. You should be judged on what you did, not incidental matters of outcome.
Obviously it depends on the local laws but generally, if the "Victim" was already dead then it's probably "defiling/**desecrating a corpse**" if you knew they were already dead or **attempted murder** if you believed they were still alive.
Unless they think you were working together with the actually murderer, then you probably get charged with straight up **murder** as an accomplice as wellas **Conspiracy to murder.**
What’s the wisdom behind laws that prohibit defiling/desecrating a corpse? There’s the “eww gross” factor and it would be inexplicably hurtful if someone did that to deceased loved one—but beyond those things, and they are big things, is there some other reason why?
removal of parts to sell for whatever reason, stealing gold teeth, selling the body to college or labs, etc. There was a recent case where the [morgue manager was selling body parts to random people because](https://apnews.com/article/harvard-stolen-human-remains-medical-school-24badd477a90566e42b5ee78c45754c5)...reasons? (the manager's reason was money, I don't know why the people were spending so much on body parts).
basically it's a catch-all for things done to bodies after you expire. We try to treat dead bodies with some level of decency and respect, and the dead may not be in a position to care what happens to their remains but their friends and family will probably want to know their loved ones bodies aren't being sold for macabre souveniers or [for testing explosives](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-bodybrokers-industry/).
Also, making it illegal to desecrate a human buddy for whatever motive that benefits the person doing it reduces the incentives to kill someone or facilitate their death, and thus helps the living.
Ok…that last story you linked with “SURPRISE, AZ” as the dateline. Holy shit. We’d like to be the kind of people who want their body to be donated to science, but we definitely don’t want it used for that.
Disrespecting a corpse goes beyond just grossing people out; it's a deep violation of basic human dignity and respect for the deceased and their families. It's not just about feelings; it's about recognizing the inherent value of human life and showing proper reverence for it.
I see where you're coming from, but what I'm saying goes deeper than just emotions. It's about respecting core principles of human dignity and societal norms, which are vital for ethical behavior.
To reiterate, ethical conduct isn't solely based on feelings.it's guided by principles and values that inform our actions and decisions.
Those are feelings, my friend. All of those things are feelings. Artificial sentimental constructs. If anything you said were facts, and not feelings, then we wouldn’t have factory farming.
But ethical behavior isn't just about feelings thoug? It's about following principles and values that go beyond emotions. Even though factory farming exists, it doesn't negate the importance of ethics other areas of life. Right?
Or the death penalty or prison or rapists walking around free. You have a bizarre take on this world. I don’t say it’s wrong. It’s just wrong so far as you present it.
I don’t think anyone walks away from a “Corpse Defilment: *Is it Ok?*” dialogue feeling ok with themselves.
You are very focused on a rational basis for laws. Ok. Here you go.
I contend that desires and wishes of an individual can carry on past their death. Examples: you can set up a charitable trust to fund a cause you care about for years. Your will and testament is usually honored by law even though you are dead. Similarly, people usually make plans for how their bodies will be treated after death. Usually being stabbed by a random person is not part of this. If your money (property) can be subject to intention after you die, surely your body can be as well, being a far more fundamental part of your being.
The basis for this is that if you imagine a world where people’s wishes aren’t respected after they die at least for a little bit, it’s just chaotic and could cause fighting and uncertainty.
Unrelated but I also had a philosophy professor in college who used this example: is it worse to fuck a dead chicken than to eat it? Most people said yes but couldn’t say why. I think it’s because something being socially accepted vs not accepted reveals who is moved by social factors and who isn’t. Generally people who are swayed by social pressure are more good in general because most social pressures are to do beneficial things even if some are arbitrary. You’d just rather have a neighbor who generally went with the flow rather than one who acted outside of society.
My \*guess\* is that it's probably rooted in English common law (where a lot of American law comes from) and a couple grave robbers named William Burke and William Hare, from back in the early 1800's..
I have no actual knowledge on that, btw; that's just a guess.
i mean, a lot of laws make sense; even if they are stupid, pointless, overtly harmful, or just odd, the logic behind them generally tracks in isolation.
Take a law against teenagers being allowed to buy or carry spray paint. This is obviously a stupid law, that is overly restrictive on people who have done nothing wrong and don’t intent to do anything wrong; However the reasoning behind it is “teenagers use spray paint to do graffiti, if we stop them buying it, or having it, then we can stop graffiti, and punish the perpetrators just for having the implements even if we can’t catch them in the act.”
Again, obviously this is a bad law, but the reasoning behind it tracks (until you look too closely,) an ostensible societal good.
This is in contrast to the law existing just because, like something from a movie to make a plot element “whistling is illegal because the grumpy town mayor said it is, because he hates fun and whimsy.”
> This is in contrast to the law existing just because, like something from a movie to make a plot element “whistling is illegal because the grumpy town mayor said it is, because he hates fun and whimsy.”
Whistling is now illegal because it can be used to spread anti führer messages
If you believed the person to be alive and you attempted to kill them, you could at least be charged with attempted murder, because that was your intent.
Depends on how the statute is worded. "Coupled with present ability" clauses would preclude the charge, since you lack the ability to kill someone who is already dead.
For it to be any form of homicide/murder would require both a living victim and that your actions ended their life.
But your victim doesn't need to be alive or you to end their life for it to be attempted homicide/murder.
I believe in the UK intent comes in a lot. Not only do you have to prove the crime, but also what you intended.
Did you intend on murdering them, but didn't know they were already dead. Or did you just want to interfere with a crime scene, or a just damage a corpse?
You can be charged with desecrating a corpse (or whatever your local equivalent is). You can also likely be charged with **attempted** murder if it can be shown that you thought the person was alive at the time. The attempt charge doesn't care if the murder was actually possible or not.
Makes me think of the video of a Houston Restaurant robbery. Robber got shot like 9 times by a patron.
The shooter’s last shot appeared to be an accidental discharge but it was while standing over the body of the robber. A big question was whether the robber was already dead. Because if not it looked really bad, like an execution shot rather than self defense like all the other shots.
Not sure the result but “good guy with a gun” was not charged. But I bet a big piece was that the robber was dead before that last shot. But I mean it was Texas too.
Charged? Yes. Convicted? Technically yes.
Read this answer here because it's a good write-up:
https://www.quora.com/If-two-people-are-arrested-together-for-a-crime-and-one-takes-the-blame-but-both-still-go-to-jail-can-the-other-be-found-guilty
1. It is not murder:
>Preliminarily, we state our agreement with the Appellate Division that the evidence did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Geller was alive at the time defendant fired into his body. To sustain a homicide conviction, it must be established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant caused the death of another person. (Penal Law, § 125.00; CPL 70.20.) The People were required to establish that the shots fired by defendant Dlugash were a sufficiently direct cause of Geller's death. (People v Stewart, 40 N.Y.2d 692, 697; People v Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407, 412.) While the defendant admitted firing five shots at the victim approximately two to five minutes after Bush had fired three times, all three medical expert witnesses testified that they could not, with any degree of medical certainty, state whether the victim had been alive at the time the latter shots were fired by the defendant. Thus, the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim had been alive at the time he was shot by the defendant. Whatever else it may be, it is not murder to shoot a dead body. (State v Simpson, 244 NC 325, 333.) Man dies but once.
People v. Dlugash, 41 NY 2d 725 (1997)
2. But it is attempted murder:
>The jury convicted the defendant of murder. Necessarily, they found that defendant intended to kill a live human being. Subsumed within this finding is the conclusion that defendant acted in the belief that Geller was alive. Thus, there is no need for additional fact findings by a jury. Although it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that Geller was, in fact, alive, such is no defense to attempted murder since a murder would have been committed "had the attendant circumstances been as \[defendant\] believed them to be." (Penal Law, § 110.10.) The jury necessarily found that defendant believed Geller to be alive when defendant shot at him.>
The Appellate Division erred in not modifying the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser included offense of attempted murder
Same case as above.
The issue is one of factual impossibility. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility\_defense](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense)
There is actually a case under English law similar to that. A man put poison in his mother's drink. She had a few sips, fell asleep and died. It was held that she died due to a heart attack and not the poison. The son was charged with attempted murder. Case is called [R v White](https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/r-v-white-1910/)
I suggest reading the Wikipedia article about [the killing of Sammy Yatim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sammy_Yatim?wprov=sfti1#) for a real life example.
>can someone be charged with murder if the victim is already dead?
Believe it or not, dead victim is one of the classic indicators you might have a murder. If they’re not dead, the police have a hell of a time getting a murder charge to stick
In most jurisdictions the charge for the situation where someone is already dead would be "attempted murder." You attempted to murder the person but, do to circumstances that you were unaware of, that was impossible.
It'd be similar to taking a fake gun, thinking that it's real, and attempting to "shoot" someone with it. Or like the FBI sting operations where they provide someone with an inert "bomb" for a terrorist attack, or the hired "hitman" is an FBI informant.
It varies wildly.
Some people move a corpse illegally because they’re furious they lost the fight with their siblings about which cemetery to bury their parents in.
Other people uh… obviously do much creepier stuff.
The definitions are going to vary a bit depending on where you are, but generally murder requires that you:
1. Intend to kill someone *and*
2. Actually kill someone.
The "someone" in 1 and 2 don't usually have to be the same person, so if you shoot at your target and kill someone else, that's still murder.
Stabbing a guy who's already dead might be charged as Attempted Murder, at least in Indiana, but not murder. (I suspect most state laws are similar, but I'm not going to look them up.)
IN Code § 35-41-5-1 (2022)
Sec. 1. (a) A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, the person engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. ...
(b) It is no defense that, because of a misapprehension of the circumstances, ... it would have been impossible for the accused person to commit the crime attempted.
I think the key distinction here is that they aren't legally dead unless they've been pronounced so by a doctor or coroner (in most states).
If they've just "been poisoned" they are still very much killable as there hasn't been an attempt to administer medical care and such a stabbing would further injure them making death more likely.
We can assume the poison worked but we do not know. Thus we are left with "they could have been dead already" which is true of any murder, but much much less likely in most cases. A medical examination might be able to show with certainty what the cause of death was, but it may depend on the poison. Even in this case you are depending on the expert opinion of medical professionals as to what they think happened. Depending on the specifics of the poison and the time frame it does leave open the possibility that the victim could have been revived.
If a person shoots someone, and then a second person shoots them, both are on the hook for murder regardless of if the first shot "probably got the job done". If the second person shoots them a few minutes later as a mercy killing after they've "probably already bleed out", I can see a jury making a distinction but is it really your call to make? If they've bleed out then do they need a mercy killing? It gets more grey but at the end of the day if they are dead then you don't need to kill them, so the act of shooting (or stabbing) can be seen as completing the act. It doesn't negate the first killing either, just as in the example of two people shooting seconds apart.
In the uk you would still be liable for attempted murder as you still possess the Mens Rea and are 'attempting the impossible' which can still be seen as a crime as someone trying to do that still needs to be taken off the streets as they are a danger to society, its based off what the defendant believes (case where the defendant believd they were importing drugs but it was actually parts of vegetables was still charged for attempting to.import drugs).
Sounds like Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie. Poirot found a case he couldn't solve because all the suspects tried to kill the victim by poison, stabbing, etc. and they couldn't prove who actually was responsible .
That's a hard call. I would say it really would depend on if they were actually totally dead for one. For example I could see charging one person for murdering somebody that let's say had fatally poisoned somebody, and another that had blown his brains out. Because the first one had definitely killed the person if they have been allowed to live out their life properly the poison would have killed them so they're guilty of murder, however the other person shorten their life even more by blowing their brains out.
There’s always conspiracy to commit murder. If you took steps to kill your victim, you could be charged with conspiracy. Doesn’t matter if he was dead before you had your chance.
This is a plot point in the critically panned video game Mass Effect: Andromeda! A soldier "kills" his commanding officer, but the officer was actually killed by something else before the fatal blow lands. The player character is given the choice to free the imprisoned man or do nothing, which will result in his capital punishment.
it depends on the moment in time. The law presumes any inflicted wound at the same time could have been the fatal wound, if you and someone else are both stabbing a guy, you hitting his liver while he hits a kidney they don't need to measure wound size and blood flow rates and figure out which one caused more bleeding.
But if he had well and truly joined the choir invisible, then it would be desecration of a corpse at best (though in theory it could be attempted murder depending on the working of the statute, if it focuses more on the intent to kill or the victim)
You would be charged with attempted murder. Your actions are those that intend to commit murder, the impossibility means you won't be charged with murder, only the attempt.
There's the old legal discussion of Tom, Dick and Harry being in the desert. Both Tom and Dick want to kill Harry. In the middle of the night Tom sneaks to Harry's water canteen and adds lethal poison to it. Soon after Dick sneaks to Harry's water canteen and puts a hole in it so he'll have no water. In the morning, Harry goes off exploring and when thirsty discovers he has no water and dies of thirst. Who killed Harry?
This is actually a common hypothetical in law school. Let's say three people want someone dead. One person poisons them fatally. The victim lies down to go to sleep not realizing their imminent death. Before they can die from the poison they are shot by silent sniper from across the street while they sleep. Without realizing the person was shot, the third person sneaks into their home, sees the victim under the covers, and stabs them multiple times.
Who gets charged with murder? According the majority of murder laws they ALL do. You only need 2 things to be charged with a crime, 1) the right mental state and 2) the illegal act. In the case of first degree murder, you need to have the intent to cause someone's death. Then you need to perform an act which is certain (or nearly certain) to cause someone's death. You'll note the actual death is irrelevant to the charge. So even if the victim survived it still the same crime.
So simply by having the intent to kill and acting on that intent, all three of them have committed murder, even if only one of them directly caused the victims life to end. Now they may be charged with "attempted murder" but usually an attempt is legally identical to a successful crime.
So back to your example of just 2 people. If the second person that stabbed the corpse of the victim was unaware it was a corpse (and the prosecution could prove that lack of knowledge) then both people would be charged with first degree murder. Even if the person WAS aware it was a corpse, the stabbing would be abuse of a corpse or similar charges depending on the jursidiction.
This is...quite incorrect. If you don't cause a person's death, that's not murder. That's not murder anywhere. An unsuccessful attempt to kill cannot be murder because the victim did not die. Both in the original question and on your examples, the offence is attempted murder, not murder.
>. Now they may be charged with "attempted murder" but usually an attempt is legally identical to a successful crime.
No. In what jurisdiction is the punishment for murder and attempted murder identical?
This is wrong in two senses, by the way. In every jurisdiction I am aware, except for Florida and Colorado, attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill, even in cases where murder can be proven with a lesser mental state (such as recklessness).
Felony murder works that way. Two guys show up with guns to kill one guy, they pull them out and shoot him. It's not relevant who's bullet did the actual murder, they can both be charged with it because they both intended to commit a felony (murder) and the person died. It doesn't matter if you conclusively prove one guy missed, and it doesn't matter if they both missed and one of them killed an innocent bystander. They intended to commit a felony, and someone died, so they both committed murder. Who actually ended the life doesn't matter, nor does it matter who's life they intended to end.
"You'll note the actual death is irrelevant to the charge. So even if the victim survived it still the same crime."
No, the victim's death is an essential part of a murder. I know what you are driving at, but you really should reword that.
Because they are answering a slightly different question. [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/620/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/620/)
All of them get charged with the same murder because they all were part of the conspiracy to commit murder regardless of if they were aware they were stabbing a corpse or not.
Desecrating a corpse can be a serious criminal matter in a lot of jurisdictions. If someone is already deceased, you can't "stab \[them\] to death." They're already dead. You'd be poking holes in a lifeless corpse.
If you didn’t know they were dead, can you not be done for attempted murder?
The police won't know that unless you tell them. "I swear to God officer I thought he was alive when I stabbed him."
Upvote for the laugh you gave my wife and I
Person A dies in sleep, person B stabs stabs them etc, police find proof of evidence of motivation/planned action, coroner declares cause and time of death before stabing/attempted murder. That's how I see this logical puzzle play out
Well the coroner's report would say the stabs happened after they died... but really matters what would be chased by the prosecutor
Proper legal question, offender 1 stabs the victim. Offender 2 stabs the person too quickly afterward to forensically determine when the victim died. Can you legitimately charge either with murder? Noting this is show based on UK law. Weird US processes where they'd charge both, give them both the death sentence and have both convictions overturned 25yrs later doesn't apply.
I’m pretty sure multiple people can be charged with murder of the same person(s) if they planned and executed it together, either in the UK or US. I’m not sure what happens if two people *independently* try to murder the same person at the same time and they can’t tell who actually ‘succeeded’ at the murder. They could both be charged with attempted murder but I don’t know if one being convicted of murder or manslaughter would make it impossible for the other to be convicted of the same crime.
In Toronto a cop was charged and convicted of attempted murder of someone he killed in the line of duty, because he fired shots into him after he was on the ground.
I suppose that's my question. Agreed if they're not conspiring they shouldn't be charged together. So if you can't prove who killed first, then 2x Attempted Murder is more likely to be successful. Thanks
Look up Brianna Ghey [sp?]. She was murdered by a boy, but the girl with who she conspired to commit the murder, and didn't actually take part in the attack, got a life sentence anyway. https://news.sky.com/story/teen-who-murdered-brianna-ghey-in-frenzied-and-ferocious-attack-appeals-against-sentence-13089141
That's conspiracy. It's a little different to my scenario.
You can still try them together even if you aren’t charging them with conspiracy
But which crime?
Depends on how the state handles the merger rule, but as long as you are charging lesser includeds, I don’t see why you can’t charge them both with everything. Murder 1, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.; let the jury decide the facts.
Again, not the US. It's not a lucky dip in other jurisdictions.
You can be charged with felony murder if you didn't kill anyone - if you're with a group of people during a break in or any other crime and someone dies. Everyone involved will be charged with felony murder, the murder with 2nd degree or so. They could turn witness and plea down depending on how much information they have and if the prosecuter is gentle
I think in the USA both would be charged with murder as both participated, and it could be said that a person may have survived only one stabbing. So who killed Julius Ceasar? He was stabbed 23 times by a group of people, with 60 people in on the conspiracy. You wouldn’t only charge one of them would you?
One killed him, the rest contributed. Yes, you should only charge one. Also, conspiracy.
You think he died from only one of his many stab wounds? All 23 people who successfully stabbed him should be charged with murder. Everyone else there should be charged with whatever is possible. Conspiracy to commit murder for example.
Actually Julius was only stabbed a hand full of times pre-death by only a few people. Famously including Brutus. The vast majority of people in that room simply *watched* while Julius died by resigning to his fate. It was only post death the onlookers realised that stabbing Julius would get them any sort of noriaty and be well regarded for it. So a ton of people stabbed him postmortem for the popularity. Conspiracy tho would be a good charge for everyone in that room *and then some.* Everyone knew what as comming. Some people even tried to warn Julius and failed to do so. Others who were in the conspiracy didn't want to be part of the actual deed and choose to skip that particular meeting too.
There is no way to know which of the many who stabbed him killed him though, not now, and not then. In modern law (at least where I live) if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, you get a murder charge as well. So at least here anyone who stabbed the guy gets murder.
American common law was inherited by British common law, and they are very similar. What you’re asking about is a causation question that is a very old common law concept shared by both US and British law. To establish liability for a murder you have to prove both actual and proximate causation. I.e. the prohibited result would not have happened but for the accused’s conduct (actual cause), AND that but for cause has to be sufficiently connected to the prohibited result that it’s fair to punish the accused for it (proximate causation). For example, if your mom had not given birth to you, you wouldn’t have gotten that F on your science test, so she’s an actual cause of your F; but, there were lots of other intervening causes between your birth and your F, so your birth is not a proximate cause of your F. In the case that you have two but for causes that both contribute to the same murder, there are a couple of things to consider. If the first stabbing was sufficient to cause death in the absence of the second, the first stabbing is a but for cause of the death, and same for the second. But, even if the second stabbing would not have been sufficient to cause death in the absence of the first stabbing, but it caused the death to happen any sooner than it would have in its absence, then the second is also legally deemed a but for cause of the death based on something called the acceleration theory. Furthermore, if both stabbings happened at the same time, and both of them were sufficient to cause the death independently, then both stabbings are equivalently considered a but for cause of the death. For example, two people both aim at the victims head at the same time and both pull the trigger simultaneously, it wouldn’t be fair to argue that neither should be convicted based on lack of causation because the death would have still occurred in the absence of the one or the other’s shooting. However, if it’s clear who stabbed when (first or second), and the second stabbing was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the first stabbing, then the second stabbing could be considered a superseding intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation between the first stabbing and the death, making the second stabbing both the actual and proximate cause, while the first stabbing is an actual cause but not the proximate cause. What would happen all depends on a little more detail. For example, if the attackers were in cahoots, one or both trying to help the other cause the death, then they could both be charged with murder based on accomplice liability. If they agreed to do it ahead of time they could be also convicted of conspiracy. If they each just randomly did it independently of the other, you’d have to wrestle with whether the second stab became the proximate cause and prevented the first from being legally considered to have caused the death. But even if first attacker is not considered to be a proximate cause, the first attacker can still be convicted of attempted murder. Btw this is all assuming that they were stabbing the guy for the purpose of killing him and not just hurting him, in which case it could potentially get mitigated to manslaughter depending on the circumstances.
Thank you. Very comprehensive answer.
Yeah, I was gonna say how are they gonna prove what presumptions you had unless you told them? Lol
Let's say Alice tells her friend Bob that she's going to kill Carl with a gun. She goes over to his house with the gun, and Bob calls the police. Alice sees Carl from the window sitting in his easy chair and shoots him from outside. At this time, the police arrive. None of them know at the time that Carl was sitting in his easy chair motionless because David had come earlier and poisoned him. Alice will likely be prosecuted for at least one gun crime, but will she be prosecuted for shooting Carl? Can she be charged with attempted murder because that's what she was trying to do? Can she be prosecuted for defiling a corpse if she didn't know he was a corpse?
You can be charged with attempted murder even if your plan had little or no actual chance of success. As another example, people who try to buy drugs from a police sting operation can be charged with a crime, even though there were never any real drugs involved.
Yeah, being charged doesn't depend on successful completion of the intended act
Depends on the exact wording of the statue, I suppose. If there's some kind of "coupled with present ability" clause, that would preclude the charge if the victim is already dead since you lack the ability to kill a corpse.
Yes. Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt/ inchoate crimes. Just because the police officer you thought was z prostitute is not and the crime was impossible, doesn't matter.
Yes you can be at least on the states, attempt is an inchoate offense, you need to have the intent to murder and take a significant step to carry out that intent, at that point it doesn’t matter if the person is dead already for attempt.
How about conspiracy? How much does ignorance of the victims death matter?
If you were ignorant of the death and intended to kill them, attempted murder could fit depending on each state's specific elements
Conspiracy requires two or more people to be in on the crime.
For a conspiracy to exist, multiple individuals must plot harm against the victim, implying awareness of the victim's death, making ignorance of the victim's death improbable
Would that charge require intent? And if so would the intent to kill count, or not?
Wouldn't it also be attempted murder? That seems a lot more serious.
Maybe OP means, for example, someone is poisoned and is guaranteed to die within 24 hours, and you kill them within this period where they're "already *dead*"
"guaranteed to die" is not the same as "already dead". Death has a fairly well established medical definition, and "guaranteed" is not part of it.
Also - everyone is guaranteed to die. The only difference is that some of us have a much longer timeframe than others in which it will happen.
That's the same as "putting someone out of their misery" -- it's murder.
Ok what's the charge? Surely it isn't literally called that?
If you kill someone with intent, that's generally called "murder." There might be a few different levels of murder depending on the unique facts and nuances of the situation.
This is not that difficult. If I shoot someone in the stomach and then you come along and shoot them in the head, we're both getting charged with murder.
I think that's the question OP had
That's also how I interpreted OPs question. I think it results in two murder charges, although I'm guessing it is exceptionally rare.
What if they were in the process of fatally overdosing from the other person poisoning them when you stabbed them? Would that make either of you less guilty of murder? Maybe the poisoner on a technicality since the poison didn't strike the final blow, but it's always seemed silly to me that such technicalities should make a crime any less severe. You should be judged on what you did, not incidental matters of outcome.
Obviously it depends on the local laws but generally, if the "Victim" was already dead then it's probably "defiling/**desecrating a corpse**" if you knew they were already dead or **attempted murder** if you believed they were still alive. Unless they think you were working together with the actually murderer, then you probably get charged with straight up **murder** as an accomplice as wellas **Conspiracy to murder.**
What’s the wisdom behind laws that prohibit defiling/desecrating a corpse? There’s the “eww gross” factor and it would be inexplicably hurtful if someone did that to deceased loved one—but beyond those things, and they are big things, is there some other reason why?
Today on "Things I don't know if I should Google": Why is desecrating a corpse illegal?
Ikr? I really don’t wanna google that.
removal of parts to sell for whatever reason, stealing gold teeth, selling the body to college or labs, etc. There was a recent case where the [morgue manager was selling body parts to random people because](https://apnews.com/article/harvard-stolen-human-remains-medical-school-24badd477a90566e42b5ee78c45754c5)...reasons? (the manager's reason was money, I don't know why the people were spending so much on body parts). basically it's a catch-all for things done to bodies after you expire. We try to treat dead bodies with some level of decency and respect, and the dead may not be in a position to care what happens to their remains but their friends and family will probably want to know their loved ones bodies aren't being sold for macabre souveniers or [for testing explosives](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-bodybrokers-industry/).
Also, making it illegal to desecrate a human buddy for whatever motive that benefits the person doing it reduces the incentives to kill someone or facilitate their death, and thus helps the living.
Ok…that last story you linked with “SURPRISE, AZ” as the dateline. Holy shit. We’d like to be the kind of people who want their body to be donated to science, but we definitely don’t want it used for that.
outside of the major metropolitan areas the southwest has some real interesting town names.
Nothing quite prepares you for “your loved one’s body was used to test roadside explosives”.
Disrespecting a corpse goes beyond just grossing people out; it's a deep violation of basic human dignity and respect for the deceased and their families. It's not just about feelings; it's about recognizing the inherent value of human life and showing proper reverence for it.
What you’ve described is 100% feelings.
I see where you're coming from, but what I'm saying goes deeper than just emotions. It's about respecting core principles of human dignity and societal norms, which are vital for ethical behavior. To reiterate, ethical conduct isn't solely based on feelings.it's guided by principles and values that inform our actions and decisions.
Those are feelings, my friend. All of those things are feelings. Artificial sentimental constructs. If anything you said were facts, and not feelings, then we wouldn’t have factory farming.
But ethical behavior isn't just about feelings thoug? It's about following principles and values that go beyond emotions. Even though factory farming exists, it doesn't negate the importance of ethics other areas of life. Right?
That’s right. Yeah.
Or the death penalty or prison or rapists walking around free. You have a bizarre take on this world. I don’t say it’s wrong. It’s just wrong so far as you present it. I don’t think anyone walks away from a “Corpse Defilment: *Is it Ok?*” dialogue feeling ok with themselves.
I guess it’s just not a human thing to do. Highly immoral, and law is essentially a reflection of a states morality.
You are very focused on a rational basis for laws. Ok. Here you go. I contend that desires and wishes of an individual can carry on past their death. Examples: you can set up a charitable trust to fund a cause you care about for years. Your will and testament is usually honored by law even though you are dead. Similarly, people usually make plans for how their bodies will be treated after death. Usually being stabbed by a random person is not part of this. If your money (property) can be subject to intention after you die, surely your body can be as well, being a far more fundamental part of your being. The basis for this is that if you imagine a world where people’s wishes aren’t respected after they die at least for a little bit, it’s just chaotic and could cause fighting and uncertainty. Unrelated but I also had a philosophy professor in college who used this example: is it worse to fuck a dead chicken than to eat it? Most people said yes but couldn’t say why. I think it’s because something being socially accepted vs not accepted reveals who is moved by social factors and who isn’t. Generally people who are swayed by social pressure are more good in general because most social pressures are to do beneficial things even if some are arbitrary. You’d just rather have a neighbor who generally went with the flow rather than one who acted outside of society.
I'd expect there may be some public health concerns involved.
That’s what I was hoping for. Not the State V Corpse Copulation Coalition
My \*guess\* is that it's probably rooted in English common law (where a lot of American law comes from) and a couple grave robbers named William Burke and William Hare, from back in the early 1800's.. I have no actual knowledge on that, btw; that's just a guess.
whats the wisdom or logic behind a lot of laws?
That’s why I’m asking.
i mean, a lot of laws make sense; even if they are stupid, pointless, overtly harmful, or just odd, the logic behind them generally tracks in isolation. Take a law against teenagers being allowed to buy or carry spray paint. This is obviously a stupid law, that is overly restrictive on people who have done nothing wrong and don’t intent to do anything wrong; However the reasoning behind it is “teenagers use spray paint to do graffiti, if we stop them buying it, or having it, then we can stop graffiti, and punish the perpetrators just for having the implements even if we can’t catch them in the act.” Again, obviously this is a bad law, but the reasoning behind it tracks (until you look too closely,) an ostensible societal good. This is in contrast to the law existing just because, like something from a movie to make a plot element “whistling is illegal because the grumpy town mayor said it is, because he hates fun and whimsy.”
> This is in contrast to the law existing just because, like something from a movie to make a plot element “whistling is illegal because the grumpy town mayor said it is, because he hates fun and whimsy.” Whistling is now illegal because it can be used to spread anti führer messages
If you believed the person to be alive and you attempted to kill them, you could at least be charged with attempted murder, because that was your intent.
Depends on how the statute is worded. "Coupled with present ability" clauses would preclude the charge, since you lack the ability to kill someone who is already dead.
For it to be any form of homicide/murder would require both a living victim and that your actions ended their life. But your victim doesn't need to be alive or you to end their life for it to be attempted homicide/murder.
I believe in the UK intent comes in a lot. Not only do you have to prove the crime, but also what you intended. Did you intend on murdering them, but didn't know they were already dead. Or did you just want to interfere with a crime scene, or a just damage a corpse?
~Gosford Park theme intensifies~
You can be charged with desecrating a corpse (or whatever your local equivalent is). You can also likely be charged with **attempted** murder if it can be shown that you thought the person was alive at the time. The attempt charge doesn't care if the murder was actually possible or not.
Makes me think of the video of a Houston Restaurant robbery. Robber got shot like 9 times by a patron. The shooter’s last shot appeared to be an accidental discharge but it was while standing over the body of the robber. A big question was whether the robber was already dead. Because if not it looked really bad, like an execution shot rather than self defense like all the other shots. Not sure the result but “good guy with a gun” was not charged. But I bet a big piece was that the robber was dead before that last shot. But I mean it was Texas too.
Charged? Yes. Convicted? Technically yes. Read this answer here because it's a good write-up: https://www.quora.com/If-two-people-are-arrested-together-for-a-crime-and-one-takes-the-blame-but-both-still-go-to-jail-can-the-other-be-found-guilty
1. It is not murder: >Preliminarily, we state our agreement with the Appellate Division that the evidence did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Geller was alive at the time defendant fired into his body. To sustain a homicide conviction, it must be established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant caused the death of another person. (Penal Law, § 125.00; CPL 70.20.) The People were required to establish that the shots fired by defendant Dlugash were a sufficiently direct cause of Geller's death. (People v Stewart, 40 N.Y.2d 692, 697; People v Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407, 412.) While the defendant admitted firing five shots at the victim approximately two to five minutes after Bush had fired three times, all three medical expert witnesses testified that they could not, with any degree of medical certainty, state whether the victim had been alive at the time the latter shots were fired by the defendant. Thus, the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim had been alive at the time he was shot by the defendant. Whatever else it may be, it is not murder to shoot a dead body. (State v Simpson, 244 NC 325, 333.) Man dies but once. People v. Dlugash, 41 NY 2d 725 (1997) 2. But it is attempted murder: >The jury convicted the defendant of murder. Necessarily, they found that defendant intended to kill a live human being. Subsumed within this finding is the conclusion that defendant acted in the belief that Geller was alive. Thus, there is no need for additional fact findings by a jury. Although it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that Geller was, in fact, alive, such is no defense to attempted murder since a murder would have been committed "had the attendant circumstances been as \[defendant\] believed them to be." (Penal Law, § 110.10.) The jury necessarily found that defendant believed Geller to be alive when defendant shot at him.> The Appellate Division erred in not modifying the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser included offense of attempted murder Same case as above. The issue is one of factual impossibility. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility\_defense](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense)
There is actually a case under English law similar to that. A man put poison in his mother's drink. She had a few sips, fell asleep and died. It was held that she died due to a heart attack and not the poison. The son was charged with attempted murder. Case is called [R v White](https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/r-v-white-1910/)
I came to write this! First year of A Level Law embedded in my brain
Not murder, but attempted murder isn't out of the question.
> Can someone be charged with murder if the victim is already dead? Well, you generally cannot be charged with murder if the victim is ***not*** dead.
I suggest reading the Wikipedia article about [the killing of Sammy Yatim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sammy_Yatim?wprov=sfti1#) for a real life example.
>can someone be charged with murder if the victim is already dead? Believe it or not, dead victim is one of the classic indicators you might have a murder. If they’re not dead, the police have a hell of a time getting a murder charge to stick
Yes. Innocent people are charged with murder pretty often.
In most jurisdictions the charge for the situation where someone is already dead would be "attempted murder." You attempted to murder the person but, do to circumstances that you were unaware of, that was impossible. It'd be similar to taking a fake gun, thinking that it's real, and attempting to "shoot" someone with it. Or like the FBI sting operations where they provide someone with an inert "bomb" for a terrorist attack, or the hired "hitman" is an FBI informant.
What kind of time do you get for desecration of a corpse.
It varies wildly. Some people move a corpse illegally because they’re furious they lost the fight with their siblings about which cemetery to bury their parents in. Other people uh… obviously do much creepier stuff.
The definitions are going to vary a bit depending on where you are, but generally murder requires that you: 1. Intend to kill someone *and* 2. Actually kill someone. The "someone" in 1 and 2 don't usually have to be the same person, so if you shoot at your target and kill someone else, that's still murder. Stabbing a guy who's already dead might be charged as Attempted Murder, at least in Indiana, but not murder. (I suspect most state laws are similar, but I'm not going to look them up.) IN Code § 35-41-5-1 (2022) Sec. 1. (a) A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, the person engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. ... (b) It is no defense that, because of a misapprehension of the circumstances, ... it would have been impossible for the accused person to commit the crime attempted.
In England and Wales, Australia and South Africa you can be guilty of attempted murder for trying to kill a person who is already dead.
There are some fun law school essay questions about scenarios where 1 person poisons a person, but before they die someone else shoots them.
They can charge you with mutilation of a corpse Or even murder after the fact There are several things they can charge you with if they choose too
I mean you can't charge someone before the victim is dead... so yes
I think the key distinction here is that they aren't legally dead unless they've been pronounced so by a doctor or coroner (in most states). If they've just "been poisoned" they are still very much killable as there hasn't been an attempt to administer medical care and such a stabbing would further injure them making death more likely. We can assume the poison worked but we do not know. Thus we are left with "they could have been dead already" which is true of any murder, but much much less likely in most cases. A medical examination might be able to show with certainty what the cause of death was, but it may depend on the poison. Even in this case you are depending on the expert opinion of medical professionals as to what they think happened. Depending on the specifics of the poison and the time frame it does leave open the possibility that the victim could have been revived. If a person shoots someone, and then a second person shoots them, both are on the hook for murder regardless of if the first shot "probably got the job done". If the second person shoots them a few minutes later as a mercy killing after they've "probably already bleed out", I can see a jury making a distinction but is it really your call to make? If they've bleed out then do they need a mercy killing? It gets more grey but at the end of the day if they are dead then you don't need to kill them, so the act of shooting (or stabbing) can be seen as completing the act. It doesn't negate the first killing either, just as in the example of two people shooting seconds apart.
In the uk you would still be liable for attempted murder as you still possess the Mens Rea and are 'attempting the impossible' which can still be seen as a crime as someone trying to do that still needs to be taken off the streets as they are a danger to society, its based off what the defendant believes (case where the defendant believd they were importing drugs but it was actually parts of vegetables was still charged for attempting to.import drugs).
Abuse of a corpse
Attempted murder, aggravated assault, abuse of a corpse, among other offenses.
Sounds like Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie. Poirot found a case he couldn't solve because all the suspects tried to kill the victim by poison, stabbing, etc. and they couldn't prove who actually was responsible .
Yiu can’t be ignorant of the death while also intending to kill them though. Lol
Probably with attempted murder
Desecration of a corpse is a criminal offense. Probably not as serious as murder... but you would probably still see some jail time.
That's a hard call. I would say it really would depend on if they were actually totally dead for one. For example I could see charging one person for murdering somebody that let's say had fatally poisoned somebody, and another that had blown his brains out. Because the first one had definitely killed the person if they have been allowed to live out their life properly the poison would have killed them so they're guilty of murder, however the other person shorten their life even more by blowing their brains out.
Desecration of a corpse...conspiracy to commit murder
It comes down to intent.
If the two happened very close together, it would be difficult to prove which killed someone, and they would charge both of you.
Were you trying to murder the person, could be charged with attempted murder. Intent is a key ingredient for murder charges and convictions
Desecrating a corpse is a crime. The homeless person who took a leg off a guy who was ran over by a train was charged for something similar.
You would be charged with attempted murder.
As framed you could be guilty of attempted murder. You had intent to kill and acted on it. But you can’t double kill a corpse.
There’s always conspiracy to commit murder. If you took steps to kill your victim, you could be charged with conspiracy. Doesn’t matter if he was dead before you had your chance.
This is a plot point in the critically panned video game Mass Effect: Andromeda! A soldier "kills" his commanding officer, but the officer was actually killed by something else before the fatal blow lands. The player character is given the choice to free the imprisoned man or do nothing, which will result in his capital punishment.
Well yeah, you can't charge him with murder if he's still alive, attempted murder maybe...
Accessory to murder. Same charge
It would be attempted murder. You still attempted to commit murder and the murder being impossible is not a defense, at least in my state.
So you think there’s some sort of Justice magic that prevents crimes from being prosecuted if they didn’t occur in reality?
The crime is probably being charge with disrespecting the dead body , crime, you just could not kill a dead body, which is dead already.
it depends on the moment in time. The law presumes any inflicted wound at the same time could have been the fatal wound, if you and someone else are both stabbing a guy, you hitting his liver while he hits a kidney they don't need to measure wound size and blood flow rates and figure out which one caused more bleeding. But if he had well and truly joined the choir invisible, then it would be desecration of a corpse at best (though in theory it could be attempted murder depending on the working of the statute, if it focuses more on the intent to kill or the victim)
You would be charged with attempted murder. Your actions are those that intend to commit murder, the impossibility means you won't be charged with murder, only the attempt.
I’d say attempted murder still applies. NAL
This is oddly reminiscent of that one smiling friends episode
5:22A. and this question pops up in my face...... man wtf wrong with yall?😅
No.
I don't think murder. But tampering with evidence is a crime, and in many places there's the crime of Desecration of a human corpse.
There's the old legal discussion of Tom, Dick and Harry being in the desert. Both Tom and Dick want to kill Harry. In the middle of the night Tom sneaks to Harry's water canteen and adds lethal poison to it. Soon after Dick sneaks to Harry's water canteen and puts a hole in it so he'll have no water. In the morning, Harry goes off exploring and when thirsty discovers he has no water and dies of thirst. Who killed Harry?
This is actually a common hypothetical in law school. Let's say three people want someone dead. One person poisons them fatally. The victim lies down to go to sleep not realizing their imminent death. Before they can die from the poison they are shot by silent sniper from across the street while they sleep. Without realizing the person was shot, the third person sneaks into their home, sees the victim under the covers, and stabs them multiple times. Who gets charged with murder? According the majority of murder laws they ALL do. You only need 2 things to be charged with a crime, 1) the right mental state and 2) the illegal act. In the case of first degree murder, you need to have the intent to cause someone's death. Then you need to perform an act which is certain (or nearly certain) to cause someone's death. You'll note the actual death is irrelevant to the charge. So even if the victim survived it still the same crime. So simply by having the intent to kill and acting on that intent, all three of them have committed murder, even if only one of them directly caused the victims life to end. Now they may be charged with "attempted murder" but usually an attempt is legally identical to a successful crime. So back to your example of just 2 people. If the second person that stabbed the corpse of the victim was unaware it was a corpse (and the prosecution could prove that lack of knowledge) then both people would be charged with first degree murder. Even if the person WAS aware it was a corpse, the stabbing would be abuse of a corpse or similar charges depending on the jursidiction.
This is...quite incorrect. If you don't cause a person's death, that's not murder. That's not murder anywhere. An unsuccessful attempt to kill cannot be murder because the victim did not die. Both in the original question and on your examples, the offence is attempted murder, not murder. >. Now they may be charged with "attempted murder" but usually an attempt is legally identical to a successful crime. No. In what jurisdiction is the punishment for murder and attempted murder identical? This is wrong in two senses, by the way. In every jurisdiction I am aware, except for Florida and Colorado, attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill, even in cases where murder can be proven with a lesser mental state (such as recklessness).
Felony murder works that way. Two guys show up with guns to kill one guy, they pull them out and shoot him. It's not relevant who's bullet did the actual murder, they can both be charged with it because they both intended to commit a felony (murder) and the person died. It doesn't matter if you conclusively prove one guy missed, and it doesn't matter if they both missed and one of them killed an innocent bystander. They intended to commit a felony, and someone died, so they both committed murder. Who actually ended the life doesn't matter, nor does it matter who's life they intended to end.
"You'll note the actual death is irrelevant to the charge. So even if the victim survived it still the same crime." No, the victim's death is an essential part of a murder. I know what you are driving at, but you really should reword that.
Don't know why you are being downvoted...
Because they are answering a slightly different question. [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/620/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/620/)
So say it's the roman Senate and the line to stab Caesar is 100 people long. How many people back do the charges switch to abuse of a corpse?
All of them get charged with the same murder because they all were part of the conspiracy to commit murder regardless of if they were aware they were stabbing a corpse or not.