Band at the execution

[RJNorton]

(06-24-2014 03:26 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Just curious - would the sentences in Mary Suratt's and George Atzerodt's case be the same today?

That is an excellent question, Eva. I do not know the answer. But I will offer one thought as a possible answer. This involves the concept of vicarious liability which Ed Steers and Laurie have discussed.

Laurie once posted the following:

"One big object lesson that I always want anyone from grade 5 on to learn is the concept of "conspiracy" related to current "gang activity" in order to stress "choose your friends wisely because their actions will reflect on you" and the necessity to report criminal intent or actions. This can be done by introducing the term "vicarious liability," which is based on English common law.

Basically, this means that, when one enters into a conspiracy, one is responsible for whatever any member of that conspiracy might do. To bring this home, I appoint a gang of three to rob a bank. One stays outside to drive the getaway car while the other two go into the bank. In the process of robbing the bank, a teller is shot and killed.

Is the thief who did NOT pull the trigger guilty? (yes) Is the one who waited in the car guilty? (yes)
What if the driver chickens out and drives away? (still yes). What if the driver chickens out and alerts the cop on the corner? (no) He attempted to alert the authorities and stop the crime. That's the secret to saving one's own hide. Then relate it to the Lincoln assassination."

So I think if we relate this to the Lincoln assassination I think it's possible all would be held responsible for Booth's actions. All except Mary Surratt were at the "final meeting." And I believe the court heard enough evidence that Mary Surratt was helping Booth until the very end. All knew enough about Booth's plans that they had time to alert the police in an attempt to save the President. Thus, if my understanding of vicarious liability is correct, this was indeed a conspiracy, and all are equally liable for what another did. So I think it could be argued that, in theory, the four could still get the death penalty nowadays, but whether this would really happen, I cannot tell for certain, but my best guess is "no" this would not happen. Perhaps they would get life. The one exception would be Lewis Powell. He intended to kill, but he ended up not killing anyone because his gun misfired, so perhaps his case would be handled more harshly. I am just speculating.