Criticisms and Justifications for the Felony Murder Doctrine

Criticisms and Justifications for the Felony Murder Doctrine:
- MPC – why they didn’t include the FM rule:
- “The Felony-Murder Rule: A Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads” by Roth and Sundby:
o H should only been punished when it’s done w/a state of mind that makes it reprehensible
and unfortunate. Lesser culpability yields lesser liability.
o But the FM rule contradicts this by basing a M conviction not on any proven culpability
re: H but rather on liability for another crime, gratuitously punishing Ds.
o Criminal punishment should be premised on more than just a probability of guilt.
o There’s no basis for thinking that accidental Hs occur w/disproportionate frequency in
connection w/specified felonies.
o We shouldn’t be able to use the severe sanctions for murder unless D acted w/extreme
indifference to the value of human life.
o Despite widespread criticism, the FM rule remains in most jurisdictions.
o It’s common law purpose is vague, maybe it was meant to more severely punish
incomplete / attempted felonies, which were then only misdemeanors, if a killing
occurred, but then this has little relevance today.
o Modern justifications:
ƒ Deterrence:
• To deter negligent and accidental killings during commission of felonies.
But how to deter an accident?
• Deterrent to committing dangerous felonies in the 1st place, but doubt
exists that serious crimes are deterred by varying the weight of the
punishment.
 12
ƒ Transferred intent / constructive malice: the rule relieves the state from the burden
ƒ Retribution and general culpability: a strict liability view of the rule that sees FM
• Few felons may know about the rule, what punishments go w/what crimes.
• There is the potential to punish a D who has no subjective culpability.
of proving premeditation or malice, criticized as an anachronistic remnant that
operates to fictitiously broad unacceptably the scope of M.
as a distinct form of H. Justifies conviction for M simply on the basis that D
committed a felony and a killing occurred. Notion that the felon has shown an evil
mind justifying severe punishment. Focuses on the resultant harm, not the actor’s
mental state, in deciding appropriate punishment. Effectively eliminates mens rea
for a killing that occurs during a felony.
- “In Defense of the Felony Murder Doctrine” by Crump and Crump:
o FM as a reflection of widely shared societal attitudes. This classification is the result of a
concern for grading offenses so as to reflect societal notions of proportionality. Idea that
an intentionally robbery that causes death is more serious than an identical robbery that
doesn’t. Statistics and jury studies seem to corroborate this.
o Criticisms that focus on mens rea denigrate actus reus.
o The rule serves the purpose of condemnation by distinguishing crimes that cause human
deaths, thus reinforcing reverence for human life.
o It also expresses solidarity w/crime victims.
o Criticisms re: deterrence underestimate its complexity. It’s not true that felons may be
ignorant of the laws or the FM rule (ex. tv). Moreover, the idea that accidental killings
can’t be deterred is inconsistent w/the civil law penalization of negligence.
o It provides the advantage of greater clarity.
o The quality of justice is limited by the scarcity of our resources and the efficiency
w/which we allocate them, and the rule has beneficial allocative consequences b/c it
clearly defines the offense and simplifies the task of the judge and jury, promoting
efficient administration of justice.
o Many crimes are defined more broadly than their harmful consequences alone might
justify (ex. drug possession).
o Criticism that the rule may cause juries to disbelieve false claims of accident leading to
false imprisonment are false; an accident claim need only rise to the level of reasonable
doubt.
o We also shouldn’t incentivize perjury by allowing an accident different status than an
intentional killing during the commission of a felony.
o The limiting doctrines are consistent w/the purpose of the rule b/c each in some way
prevents application where it’s not supported by policy, but recognition of the need for
limitation isn’t grounds for the rule’s abolition.
Homicides Analogous to Felony Murder: Unlawful-Act Manslaughter, Vehicular Homicide, and
“Resulting in Death”
- The Unlawful Act / Misdemeanor Manslaughter Doctrine: works for misdemeanors the same
way the FM rule works for felonies, making a killing accomplished in the commission of an
unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, constitute involuntary MS. It is limited by:
o Proximate cause: some jurisdictions require a strong causal connection b/t the unlawful
act and resultant H.
o Inherently bad / Malum in Se misdemeanors, dangerous offenses.
- Vehicular homicide: is sometimes treated as M, sometimes as MS.
 13
- Special statutes for intoxicated-driving homicides: ex. vehicular homicide (CA), Intoxication
MS (TX). These carry serious penalties and operate similarly to the FM rule, dispensing w/
separate mens rea requirements.
o Note: opponents of the FM rule are relatively silent re: intoxicated driving H laws.
- Resulting-in-death statutes: some states have special statutes for certain felonies that define
more aggravated crimes (or more serious sentences) if death results. Ex. child abuse resulting in
death, CR violations that result in death.