The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Against "Decriminalizing Nonviolent Prison Escapes"
An interesting new article in The Hill by my occasional coauthor T. Markus Funk, based on his upcoming Oxford University Comparative Law Forum piece on the subject; an excerpt:
[I]t would be a mistake to accept the invitation to follow the examples of countries like Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Austria, which do not outlaw nonviolent prisoner escapes ….
German law exemplifies the logic used to justify this lenient approach. The "urge to be free" is said to be deeply ingrained in human nature, rendering the prisoner acting on the "instinct to escape" insufficiently morally blameworthy to justify additional charges. The number of prior escape attempts, like the inmate's criminal history, do not factor in….
[But] democratic, rule-of-law-based justice systems, like the prisons that house those unwilling to comply with society's most basic rules, are purpose-built to protect the public from convicted criminals …. They use punishment to deter undesirable conduct….
[Escapees also] pose a significant threat to those assigned to recapture them, as well as to the public more generally. Further, recapturing an escapee — particularly one who has crossed state lines or the U.S. border — also predictably places a significant financial burden on the taxpayer….
There is nothing wrong with taking a more empathetic approach to crime, questioning aspects of our sentencing policy and prison system, and recognizing that human nature can sometimes cause even the best intentioned among us to make bad, sometimes criminal, decisions.
But our system of justice is premised on the expectation that we will conform our conduct to the law's requirements, even when doing so is anything but easy….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The term Non violent crime is often very deceptive
A lot of crimes without actual violence is done with the threat of violence -
Like the term of art "resisting arrest without violence".
How do you even do that?
By looking at the cop the wrong way
Get your crimes correct! Looking at the cop the wrong way is "contempt of cop." C'mon man, at least know what you are talking about when you cite coplaw.
By insisting on your "rights".
Generally, buy running away when lawfully ordered to stop. Possibly by snatching your arm away when an officer is trying to apply handcuffs.
As a career LEO I'm fully aware the charge is widely overused and wish it would stop.
I mean in fairness running away is resisting arrest.
By bleeding on his shoes because he smashed your face in.
I raised this issue a while back in an Open Thread, and said that I thought it was a difficult question. Still do.
It is, on the contrary, an almost comically easy question.
Which is the easy side though?
"our system of justice is premised on the expectation that we will conform our conduct to the law's requirements"
What if someone escapes, and it turns out he wasn't guilty in the first place or if he had already served his time?
Like these folks, for example:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/27-inmates-louisiana-custody-held-past-release-dates/story?id=96671162
I continue to hope some of those responsible spend time in jail or get to use the equity in their homes to provide compensation for the victims.
Misery loves company, Eh, Jerry??
I spent a few hours in the County Jail in High School, wasn't arrested, one of those "Scared Straight"(can't say that today) programs back in the late 70's,
It worked, haven't been in a Jail since (and still "Straight")
Frank
In my state, that's not a defense to escape from a prison, detention facility, or facility for commitment by court order. It is a defense otherwise, provided that you don't create substantial risk to anyone but yourself, nor create substantial risk to property, and you can show that the detention authority did not act in good faith under color of law.
Well, I can’t see them being charged with Escape if they had served their time and had no other holds or detainers. For example, I’ve served my time for Driving while unlicensed, but the adjacent county has a warrant for Burglary. If I escape before I can be transferred then it’s a legitimate charge. (Edited to add, assuming the facility is aware that their sentence has expired)
If the issue is actual innocence, that would have to be judicially established before it could be a factor.
That is not a defense in any American jurisdiciton I am familiar with, for reasons that I hope are obvious.
Why would it not be a defense if there is an in-force court order ordering the release?
Sorry, by "that" I was referring to "it turns out he wasn’t guilty in the first place".
They're not very obvious. If you escape from jail, and then get caught, but in the meantime you were declared innocent of the original crime, why should you be put back in the place you shouldn't have been in the first place?
Should people also have a license to commit perjury, falsify evidence, or threaten witnesses if they “shouldn’t” have been convicted in the first place?
In a civilized society, we want questions of guilt or innocence to be addressed through an orderly process governed by fair predictable rules, not by people resorting to self-help.
Those are pretty bad analogies since they would affect the decision of guilt or innocence in the first place.
A better analogy is whether you should owe interest and non-payment penalties for not paying a loan when it turns out you never took the loan in the first place. That seems like an obvious no, and the answer shouldn't change if at some point a judge ordered you to pay the loan but then subsequently realized they were ordering the wrong person to do so.
If that were to happen the warrant for the charge of Escape would, in all probability, be withdrawn as it would no longer be valid.
In what jurisdiction do you believe innocence of the underlying charge would be a defense to escape?
If one were incarcerated due to a conviction that were later overturned then one's incarceration would be invalid. If there were an active warrant for Escape it would, quite likely, be withdrawn.
In which jurisdiction in the United States do you think that’s the law?
But if we decriminalize everything, the crime rate would be zero!
Big win!
We are well on our way.
This blog is "often libertarian", so the idea of decriminalising things isn't as unpopular as you might think.
If “the idea of decriminalizing things” is so popular, how come people are fleeing California, which has decriminalized shoplifting, public drug-use, homeless encampments on public property, etc., etc.?
Libertarian doesn't mean anarchist
The principal argument in favor of legalizing sodomy a generation or so ago was that if it’s a natural human instinct and doesn’t hurt anyone, it’s innately wrong for the law to criminalize it. That’s the same argument being offered in favor of legalization here. And the arguments against were not unlike the ones Professor Volokh raised here, the law needs to expect people to conform their conduct to it, and legalization can have negative long-term effects on society even though they don’t cause any direct immediate harm.
What makes this different?
If the integrity of human dignity inherit in respecting the urge to fill human instincts trumps society and its concerns, why not let it trump here?
An interesting feature of contemporary legal argument. People have such a tendency to follow theoretical positions out to their most extreme possible conclusion, that if it you wait long enough, and often not very long, the “parade of horribles” hypothetical scenario nobody takes seriously tends to happen.
Failing to follow court orders does harm society, in a way that consensual sex acts don't.
I generally agree with you, I do want to push a bit on this though. As noted above, we have jurisdictions in this country where people are routinely kept beyond their court ordered release date. So who is really disobeying a court order when someone walks off a minimum security work camp site after their release date? The “escapee” or the prison officials keeping them there in the first place?
You are focusing on a single special case. But the rule applies to the general case.
Yes, I agree. And obviously the sovereign citizen standard for release terms is unworkable. However, it seems overly facile to just say “obey court orders.”
It may be a special case but we’re talking about thousands of people a year.
This is a weird framing since escape is a statutory crime, not a violation of a court order. You can commit escape before ever seeing a courtroom, and defenses to escape depend on the nature of custody, not the jurisdiction of the court.
Virtually every escape I've encountered in my career involved who had been committed by a judicial officer in one way or another (I can only think of one definite exception, and a second one that invovled an escape before remand into the facility, but may have involved an arrest on a warrant), but fair enough—add "or other lawful order of detention", and I think my point still stands.
“depend on the nature of custody“
Right. Wouldn’t the fact that the nominal release date has passed be part of the nature of the custody?
There’s no immediate harm arising out of the individual act itself. There’s only an argument that there will be some sort of long-term harm sometime in the unknown future if e.g. everybody does it. That’s a kind of moral hazard argument, an essentially moral argument if there ever was one.
1. No, a single individual disregarding the lawful commands of the system of public justice is inherently harmful. In an individual case, that harm might be small, but it's real.
2. That harm is of course compounded if it happens a lot, and failing to offer a deterrent to engaging in the harm is likely to create more of it.
3. This is not a "moral hazard argument" of any kind.
4. A "moral hazard argument" is not, in any meaningful sense, a "moral argument".
Well, there's probably some sodomy happening in lockup. Maybe more than on the outside. Can't see why anyone would want to leave prison.
The reason sodomy was outlawed is completely different to the reason that prison escape is typically outlawed.
The only thing they have in common is they didn't harm another person and they were sometimes considered criminal acts.
You might as well have chosen any other number of victimless crimes. I'm not sure why you chose sodomy as your comparison except you have another agenda or a particular interest in the topic.
(Dr.) MLK junior would probably disagree (In Heaven) His killer, James Earl Ray was a “Non Violent Escapee” (No, I don’t believe there was a “Raoul”)
Frank
German law exemplifies the logic used to justify this lenient approach. The "urge to be free" is said to be deeply ingrained in human nature, rendering the prisoner acting on the "instinct to escape" insufficiently morally blameworthy to justify additional charges.
I feel this approach could usefully be applied to tax. The urge to hang on to your own property, and to keep it from being purloined by people who didn't earn it, is deeply ingrained. Tax fraud, underdeclaration etc very seldom involves violence, and the authorities have lots of avenues they can use to check up. So if they catch up with your morally understandable efforts to keep your own money, and manage to extract it from you anyway, it's no harm, no foul, right ?
If Germany truly believes this...why imprison AT ALL?
Always did seem like a ridiculous law, what are they gonna do? put you in Jail?? Aren't the Screws supposed to keep them from escaping??
On the "human instincts" point (excerpted from the forthcoming Oxford piece):
"Prison escape is, and always has been, punishable under US federal and state criminal statutes. Yet, US law in some circumstances also recognizes the notion that a person simply following “natural instincts” may not always warrant incarceration.
Setting aside common defenses such as necessity, duress, and self-defense, which are also premised on common human instincts, at least 14 US states, including Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, and Kentucky, permit relatives to help harbor or hide a related fugitive.
Virginia’s statute, for example, explicitly states that “no person in the relation of spouse, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, or sibling . . . who, after the commission of a felony, aids or assists a principal felon or accessory before the fact to avoid or escape from prosecution or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact. ” The statute provides no carve-out for offenders who engaged in particularly serious offenses (such as a serial killer), nor is it limited to those who merely passively harbor or assist their fugitive family member (by, say, not revealing the whereabouts of the fugitive when asked by the police).
Using a hypothetical to illustrate the operation of this law, a wife who provides her convicted child-murderer husband with an escape vehicle and money and then, with the intent to obstruct the investigation, falsely tells the police that her husband has left the country is acting entirely within her rights in Virginia.
As the Florida Court of Appeals, upholding the state statute against an equal protection challenge, put it, the legislature made an intentional, praiseworthy decision to “confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law. ” As was the case in Virginia and most of the other states that provide such protections, neither the seriousness of the underlying crime nor the vigorousness of the family member’s concealment efforts changes the fact that all otherwise applicable charges are unavailable.
Even if there are sound public policy reasons for questioning these more permissive rules, it is fair to say that helping a relative remain free is normatively and morally distinguishable from a prisoner deciding to free him or herself."
Attempting to escape seems to me to be a rejection of responsibility for your underlying bad behavior. "I don't deserve to be in here." I think it proves that prison is the exact right place for you because you refuse to conform your behavior to the just expectations of society.
It could also be a rejection of the draconian US prison sentences, rather than the responsibility for the criminal behaviour per se.
You are, of course, referring to the sentences handed out to Jan. 6 demonstrators, right?
No. Those were perfectly just. Maybe TOO lenient.
Some of those were definitely too severe for my taste. Feel free to offer some examples and we can discuss.
I'm not sure I understand the difference. Refusing to accept the consequences that your fellow citizens have chosen to impose is a rejection of responsibility for your behavior.
It's the difference between:
a) I did this thing
b) I did this thing, and it was morally wrong
c) I did this thing, and it is right and proper that I'm being criminally prosecuted for this thing
d) I did this thing, and I deserve the sentence I got
Anyone who says c) or possibly b) is accepting responsibility for their actions in my book. But that doesn't mean they have to say d).
re: "draconian U.S. prison sentences"
What a joke. Maybe you haven't heard, but, all over the U.S., "woke" prosecutors are letting serious crimes go unpunished (or very lightly punished). Here's a news story of one such prosecutor, whose sweetheart plea deal was too much even for a Democrat-appointed judge:
https://www.startribune.com/judge-decide-whether-allow-plea-agreement-avoiding-prison-carjacking-murder-hennepin-minneapolis/600314188/
I'm deeply into criminal justice reform, but this is kinda insane.
If you want to decriminalize something, do that. Don't make your prisons a suggestion.
Yeah, it takes resources and has some risk. The time to address that is when writing your criminal code, not after.
This wouldn't make prisons a suggestion though. They can still get hauled back.
If you guys are quick, you could catch House Republicans voting for a strident bigot for speaker. I know the Volokh Conspirators and their conservative, faux libertarian fans would not want to miss such an important moment for their fellow bigots.
Carry on, clingers.
Just in; we have a pope. Make that speaker. Let the fun and games resume.
Did Hakeem the (Bad) Dream win? He's one of the most strident Bigots I've seen from the Congressional Black Caucasians.
I am reminded of the collateral bar rule.
For those unfamiliar with it, there is a general rule that you can't challenge a court order if you disobey it prior to challenging it.
Personally, I think that if you attempt to escape prison through non-legal means, then that is, itself, a crime. While I am sure people can and will come up with hypotheticals where this would be unfair or unjust, the reason for the rule is simple- we don't want, as a society, to ever incentivize people to break the law. There are legal processes available to be freed from prison. Incentivizing people to utilize "self help" in this context will just create even more dangerous situations.
This is wrong on two counts.
1. Failing to make X a crime does not incentivise X. It merely fails to disincentivise X. The government is not incentivising me to buy beer by failing to make it illegal.
2. “if you attempt to escape prison through non-legal means, then that is, itself, a crime. …the reason for the rule is simple- we don’t want, as a society, to ever incentivize people to break the law.”
This is circular. You’re only breaking the law when you escape because….it’s a crime ! So the need to disincentivise people from breaking the law of escaping from prison contrary to law, can’t be the reason for making it contrary to law to escape from prison.
Back on Planet Earth, the actual reason is to disincentivise people from trying to escape from prison, because it’s a great fuss trying to scoop them up again. People are kept in prison by the walls and the warders, but also by the threat of extra punishment if they try to escape. Eschew the latter and you have to spend more on the former.
This has to be the stupidest response I have ever seen.
If you added in an anecdote about Massachusetts that was quickly and provably wrong, it would pass for something Dr. Ed wrote.
But sure, the only reason we criminalize trying to escape from prison ... is because we don't want to "spend money" scooping people up.
Ugh. Anyway, have fun having your very important conversation (tm) with someone else.
Goodness, what a sensitive flower you are !
And they always reveal themselves.
Unusually, I think Mr. Moore was exactly right there.
See also the fugitive disentitlement rule, which holds you can’t go on the lam and then challenge your conviction or sentence. Same principle.
We have a relatively generous system of federal habeas corpus (even given the restrictions of AEDPA), on top of state habeas (for state offenses), and a generous system of motions for new trial and criminal appeals, plus potential discretionary review as well and a pardon/clemency system. If you are imprisoned under an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, it seems to me you pursue those remedies. Choose to escape instead and I have very little sympathy. Yes, it should be a separate crime and should also disentitle you from using the court system to challenge your confinement.
No! Decriminalizing prison escapes? Because people "desire to be free as a natural instinct" No!
I can't imagine a better way to get more people to try to escape from prison, if there are no consequences, and only a potential benefit.
People "naturally" desire all sorts of things that are illegal and they go to prison for. We've seen what happens if you decriminalize theft up to $900 of value...you get lots more theft up to that value.
If you decriminalize non-violent prison escapes...you'll get more prison escapes. Perhaps next we can decriminalize assisting such escapes too.
“German law exemplifies the logic used to justify this lenient approach. The “urge to be free” is said to be deeply ingrained in human nature, rendering the prisoner acting on the “instinct to escape” insufficiently morally blameworthy to justify additional charges.”
This is hardly a foreign concept in American law. This statement would be unremarkable in California jurisdictions that have decriminalized shoplifting:
“California law exemplifies the logic used to justify this lenient approach. The “urge to want things” is said to be deeply ingrained in human nature, rendering the consumer acting on the “instinct to shoplift” insufficiently morally blameworthy to justify any charges at all.”
"I just couldn't help myself" should be an available affirmative defense for any crime, short of insurrection of course.
Ok, I grant that the German position on this is absurd. But I suspect that the U.S. frequently overpunishes escape by categorizing it as an inherently violent crime when in fact the usual infraction is more like wandering off from an offsite work program. I’d be interested to see a law review article on how escape charges typically arise and play out in modern US practice.
Indeed, I talked to one ex-con who said that being late coming back from work release was treated as an escape attempt. So of course you call to explain the bus is running late, right? But prisoners are not allowed cell phones. Maybe a bystander can help? They will ask "Who do you need to call?".
In the unintended consequences department, I think that many jurisdictions can have low risk people in very loosely supervised conditions. The road crew picking up garbage is one example, and halfway houses for the last part of a sentence are another. IIUC both of those options are popular with inmates.
If there is no penalty for walking off the crew or not coming home to the halfway house, I would expect more walkoffs - perhaps enough to end those programs.
The Volokh Conspiracy is still strenuously and conspicuously avoiding numerous, important, prominent, and interesting legal developments concerning the Trump litigations to focus on . . . this stuff?
I guess it's better than the trans fetish.
Carry on, clingers.
This sounds like one of those "facts" where there's a lot more to the story.
I haven't found a definitive explanation, but near as I can gather it's not an issue practically speaking for a number of reasons:
1) For the vast majority of escape attempts you need to actually commit some other crime to affect it. You need to attack a guard, cut through a fence, kick in a door, etc, etc. So escapees do get punished.
2) If a guard leaves a door to the outside wide open, then I think there is a claim that it's human nature to have a strong urge to walk through it, in other words, if escaping is that easy then it might be entrapment.
3) If a prisoner is really driven to escape this gives them a motive to do so peacefully.
4) A successful escape still leaves you a fugitive unable to participate in society and to be returned to jail to finish your sentence upon capture. I'm not sure additional sentencing for escape adds that much deterrence.
5) The example we're given of why it's bad is an prisoner serving a life sentence escaping from a US prison... So clearly the US policy doesn't deter all escapes (and if they're serving a life sentence additional prison time isn't much of a deterrence).
Without better data I'm not sure Germany and many other countries have it wrong.
Moreover, several arguments in the article are easily refuted. As mentioned, the central argument about the killer who escaped custody in the US is inapplicable in several ways. But otherwise:
Courts throughout the U.S., however, have appropriately noted that escapees, by their very nature, operate under “supercharged emotions.” They pose a significant threat to those assigned to recapture them, as well as to the public more generally.
Is that a symptom of the escape, or the severe punishment for escaping? If someone already found prison disagreeable enough to want to escape it gathers they'd extra motivated to stay out and avoid the extra punishment. This may in fact be evidence that escape should be decriminalized.
Finally, the reformers’ appeal to human nature makes for a particularly treacherous slippery slope. If we permit a “natural impulses” argument for prison escapees, then why not for those who assault child abusers, steal to feed their families, are overcome with road rage, etc.?
The decriminalized escapes are victimless crimes, any other crimes during the escape are still punished.
All three examples he gives are of crimes with victims. There's no slippery slope if you're on a different hill.
'
So what?
And fine: people also have a "natural impulse" to lie to avoid getting in trouble, to accept and offer bribes, to profit from insider trading, to drive when they're drunk or don't have a license, and to vote or possess a gun when they're legally prohibited from doing so. Why shouldn't those be legal too?
So what?
Umm, maybe I'll just quote the rest of my post?
The decriminalized escapes are victimless crimes, any other crimes during the escape are still punished.
All three examples he gives are of crimes with victims. There’s no slippery slope if you’re on a different hill.
Anyways
And fine: people also have a “natural impulse” to lie to avoid getting in trouble, to accept and offer bribes, to profit from insider trading, to drive when they’re drunk or don’t have a license, and to vote or possess a gun when they’re legally prohibited from doing so. Why shouldn’t those be legal too?
Again, much of that list comprises of crimes with victims. Though I'll grant you that drunk driving and illegal possession of a firearm are victimless in themselves, but illegal because of potential, which is kind comparable to criminalizing escape. Though I'd say it's harder to argue they're part of "human nature".
Either way you made a better argument than the article, which was the point I was making. He didn't even bother to think of comparable offenses for his slippery slope argument.
But why does the fact that there are identifiable victims justify criminalizing satisfying one’s “natural impulse”?
How do you figure?
I'm not trying to debate the arguments, just pointing out how the examples the author use for his "slippery slope" argument were lazy.
As for your list, with insider trading other traders lose financially, for bribes people who depend on the correct decision lose (bribe a council to eminent domain your house), even voting when not allowed improperly weakens other peoples votes.
Frankly, the only examples I can think of for victimless crimes that are part of "human nature" are laws against drug usage. But they're not a great example either due to the addiction aspect.
I personally would add consensual sex work to the list but I know there are counter-arguments.
I have no strong opinion on whether or not a truly violence free escape should be a crime (noting that "non-violent" does seem to exclude some non-violence such as bribery).
That said, as a piece of argument this article seems kind of weak.
1. A natural experiment seems to have been set up to compare since the essay identifies countries where it is a crime and countries where it is not. Since it is stated as obviously true that it is wrong to be the latter, surely some examples could be given of those countries suffering for not being able to do more than just send such escapees back to jail. None are given beyond a generic statement that crime is rising generally.
2. The lead anecdote clearly is meant to inspire fear. However, under the AMERICAN system of justice, just like in Germany this person will not spend one more day in jail because of his non-violent escape. He may be convicted of a crime, but he was already has a life sentence for murder. It might feel good to tack on a couple years post-death for having escaped but it won't actually change anything. So it is a wildly tendentious anecdote.
3. It also ignores an obvious counterargument when stating that even if they escaped non-violently it is accepted that it is inherently dangerous to attempt recapture because the escapee is operating under a condition of "supercharged emotions." Primarily, likely, because they're is not really any downside to resisting recapture since you're going to face charges regardless. Once you've decided to escape, all the levers of our current system push for the escapee to resist recapture. In the German system, presumably, there is a benefit to accepting recapture without resistance.
Anyway. Poorly argued. I give this essay a C-.
Violently resisting arrest is yet another crime, so a person (even one with a natural impulse to do so!) would typically face additional marginal punishment for doing so, in addition to whatever marginal punishment, if any, is attached to the escape.
Leftists abhor accountability, and this core value forms the basis for nearly all of the planks in their platform. Whether it relates to welfare, healthcare, immigration, foreign affairs, criminal justice, or anything else, the left-liberal perspective may be understood as trying to shield people from all forms of accountability.
Speaking of prison escapes, I just saw this in Le Monde: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/10/26/french-escape-artist-redoine-faid-sentenced-to-14-years-in-a-disproportionate-trial_6204955_7.html
There is some deterrent value in just being transferred to a higher security prison. Whether it's enough is a separate question.
I had a pen pal in minimum security. The facility didn't even have a fence. There was a line painted on the ground and crossing it was an escape attempt. It was not at all a good place to be but she could shower by herself and find private places to cry. So she controlled herself.
(She's out now, employed full time in a field with growth opportunities.)
I recall a BBC report a few years back about a murder by an escaped psychiatric patient and offender. He had escaped , travelled into town and murdered some unfortunate woman with a knife. No details were offered as to how he had managed to escape. As ever one had to go to the Daily Mail to get the actual story. His “escape” consisted in opening the front door of the facility, which was never locked, walking past the non existent security guys, out through the always open front gate, across the road to the bus stop, and into town. Having first stopped to steal a knife from the kitchen. Not exactly ninja level skills required.
Yes, the nature urge to be free does exist. So maybe, hear me out, we do something to disincentivize people from following that natural urge when society has otherwise determined that they deserve punishment? If it's a natural urge to be free and there are no consequences to escaping, why wouldn't everyone try to escape? Your choices are therefore to either abolish all prisons and jails, or create a disincentive to escape.
Is there not a third option ? To build prisons which it is difficult to escape from ?
After all when we want to keep pigs in a pig pen, we don’t put up notices telling the pigs that if they try to escape we’ll cut their slop ration. We just try to make a robust pen.
I’ve long thought that criminals who, following being caught and convicted fair and square, are unwilling to serve the time out society has given them and therefore escape, should be treated to good old Anglo-Saxon (or is it Anglo-Norman? Or both?) outlawry: that is, it becomes lawful, even incumbent upon, any citizen who comes across the escaped felon to kill him or her.