From what I'm understanding, this person can be charged and convicted of murder even though they did not actually murder anyone. Is that right? Does this mean that accessory charges don't even exist?
When I was learning basic law in high school, driving a getaway car was the definitive example of an accessory. As in, "What does accessory mean?" "The getaway car driver is an accessory. They didn't take part in the crime itself, but they knew about it and facilitated it." A distinction was also drawn between an accessory before the crime, who had knowledge prior to the crime being committed, and an accessory after the crime, who did not.
For example, if the getaway driver had been a participant in the plan to murder someone from the beginning, they would be an accessory before. If they had no idea what was going to happen until after the actual murderer came out and said "Okay, you gotta take me away from here because I just murdered someone", they would be an accessory after.
From what I'm being told here, if the person was a participant in the plan to murder someone from the beginning, they they are a murderer because they had the intent to have the person end up murdered, regardless of whether they actually pulled the trigger or not. This would mean that what I described above as an accessory after would not be a murderer, because they did not have the intent. Is that right?
My knowledge of law is limited, and what I learned in Australia may be different from what the law is in America. Heck, what the law is in America may be different from what the law is in another part of America, so I think my confusion is understandable. I would have thought that murder was a federal crime though, and would be treated consistently.
