If He Didn’t Kill Anyone, Why Is It Murder?

This happens in a country where the idea of "revenge" is a driving force in the juridical system. Or you could argue: the look into the Bible was too intensive. The United States are not a progressive country. The whole juridical system should get an overhaul.

I believe that mr Khalifa should stay in prison. This is a tough situation for the decision of sentencing on mr khalifa. But if None of them would have entered the victims house, the poor elderly man would not have been murdered. Mr khalifa and his friends are lucky that the victim did not have a firearm which he could of used to defend himself, and turned the table on the young criminals.

Kalifa went inside and saw the man seriously wounded, and left him there to die. No sympathy.

At My Lai in Vietnam, about 300 women and children were executed by the US Army personnel. According to this US law, dozens of other US servicemen, or perhaps all US serviceman and women in Vietnam, were guilty of felony murder and should have spent decades in prison.

It's also unjust to try children as adults when they are not adults. Our scientists tell us that the areas of the brain responsible for the ability to make rational ethical and moral decisions and distinguish right from wrong are not fully matured and functioning until sometime in our early to mid-20s. Our laws, based on the concepts of free will and diminished capacity are based on outmoded understandings of how the human animal thinks and functions.

It's fine with me. If they hadn't done what they did, the victim - victim, I say - would still be alive. Anyone who contributed substantially to that crime should be held responsible for it. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

"England abolished its version of felony murder in 1957". This is not true. In the UK people can be convicted under the law of Joint Enterprise, which works in exactly the same way. It is often used with gangs where a murder is committed and anyone present in the gang can be charged and convicted. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896 for a recent story on this.

I'm pretty liberal and I do not support abolition of the felony murder rule. Someone is a lookout or getaway car driver in a crime that took another humans life - the most you can take from someone by the way - and I'm supposed to feel sympathy for this person? A gang of 5 torture and rape a woman but only one strangles her to death. The others are not complicit for the murder?

It's about time! the Felony Murder Rule has created more miscarriages of justice and more unjustified suffering than almost any law on the books in California.

I’m sure this will be great solace to the families/victims of many horrendous crimes. First they made KNOWINGLY spreading HIV no longer a felony, and now this. Why punish any crime at all for that matter? Add this to the long list of reasons people want to leave California...

Sorry, he deserves every day he served in prison. If he wasn’t there he isn’t guilty if he was there and aided and abetted and did not intervene then he was guilty. This is a wrongminded change to the law, California has more important matters in front of them. They got this one right from the beginning; it isn’t broken.

While I disagree with the extremity of convicting innocent accomplices of murder, I do think that, for their bad judgment in participating in a crime, some sort of criminal penalty be given. It is not just bad judgment on the part of the accomplices. It is the willing intent to be involved in even a minor criminal act. Yes, stupidity and bad judgment are not excuses.

"California is having second thoughts." Very interesting concept. Will the builders of bombs in California be innocent of the murders caused by the bombs if they don't set them off, don't transport them to their intended targets, and just sell them to the bombers?

New York's example of this involves the 1981 Brinks Robbery. The white gang members drove the getaway vehicles as the black gang members hid. Two police officers and a Brinks guard were murdered. (Often neglected is that another armored car guard was killed by the gang in a prior robbery, meaning that all involved knew that murder was a possible outcome of their subsequent deeds.) Two of the whites were long-time radicals Kathy Boudin and Judith Clark. Boudin's dad was a high profile lawyer and the county didn't want to risk a $5mm trial and so she took a plea deal. The prosecutors likely surmised she would never make parole. But she did, owing to the jailhouse programs she ran for fellow inmates. She served about 22 years and now she teaches at Columbia University, which threw her off the campus in the '60s. Clark represented herself at trial and received a minimum 75 year sentence. Like Boudin, her jailhouse deeds earned many liberal admirers seeking her release. But she wasn't eligible for parole until 2056...until Governor Andrew Cuomo announced, on the Friday before last Christmas, that he was commuting her sentence making her eligible for immediate parole consideration. Rejected once already, a judge has ordered another parole hearing. (It took Boudin three hearings before release.) Both Clark and Boudin were, in terms of their age, mature women at the time of the Brinks crime, and were clearly integral to its perpetration.

There is a case in Georgia where 3 teenagers were burglarizing a home (all were unarmed), the police were called, and the police shot and killed one of the burglars, and the other teens were charged with first degree murder, one received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. (He's 15-years-old.) It's getting more and more difficult to see America as a democracy.

"The deterrence value is people are discouraged from participating in serious, dangerous felonies,” said Sean Hoffman, legislative director for the California District Attorneys Association, when he testified Tuesday in opposition to the bill." No kidding. And sentencing people to prison for long terms for speeding would do miracles for reducing traffic deaths. The claim that felony participants know that their actions could lead to a death apparently would still be evaluated on an individualized basis under the “reckless indifference to human life” clause.

Sounds like all the mumbo-jumbo (Painstakingly written words Of very precise meaning, derived from Latin) of the legal profession is worth nil (Latin?)

The felony murder rule protects innocent citizens. Ending it is a mistake. Those who partake in a crime where someone is killed are no more innocent than the person who commits the actual murder. People like that are not the actual murderer by accident only. I am saddened at how our society is valuing criminals more than victims.

Lookouts, drivers, etc. are part of a "team." The team perpetrates the crime. If guilty the team is sentenced. It is perfectly logical.

This article is another example of a culture of it's someone else's fault. This guy was not there as an accident. He was willfully participating in a crime that turned violent. Crime is NEVER ok, violent or not, and all participants are equally guilty as they all had a hand in the act. He had the option to not go to the robbery. He had the option to call the police or stop his friends. Instead, he served as a lookout, which is active, knowing participation. He protected his buddies who wielded the weapon. It is part of community responsibility. I will not shed a single tear for him. I will however, shed some tears for the poor family affected forever by his criminal behavior. It is too late to say oops or ask for a mulligan.

I lived in California for decades, and never heard of this absurd statute. Based on the contents of this article, it seems to produce equally absurd results And it seems to me that it ought to be revoked. Too draconian to fit the circumstances

Taking part in a crime that ends in murder or violence should be severely punished. But if you didn't kill, you aren't a murderer. Aiding and abetting is very serious but not the same as committing.

So if 4 people break into a house, how will the prosecutor prove who fired the shot. Felony murder should certainly apply if illegally entering a house. Otherwise, I am getting a gun to defend myself.

This is another example of modern sympathy for the felons with very little compassion for the victims. Did "Making of a Murderer" start all this?

What states have the most prisoners put to death? It is usually the religious so called conservative Christian states. If you are a felon you cannot vote . That is a GOP law. The GOP and their supporters like to see humans suffer for their crimes and are numb to empathy. Look at Trump he can insult whoever he wants and they enjoy it daily why the rest of us are disgusted with his behavior.

I've got a solution: don't commit crimes. How's that for a novel idea?

I have absolutely 0 sympathy.

If you participated or helped in the crime in any way and someone lost his or her life, you are just as guilty as the main perpetrators. There is no such thing as I only killed a little bit.

he assisted in a murder, he should get life

When I was young I engaged in activities that involved drugs that are now legal in many states, based on the stats a history I share with other commenters. A number of friends died from hard drug use, more were “busted", an event that changed their lives forever. Most of those not caught went on to lead productive lives, many working their way through college, some ended up starting successful businesses, some running major billion dollar companies, paying taxes, raising families, and building nest eggs enabling them to retire where they engaged in philanthropic pursuits, etc. The moral is, “What’s the difference between a good kid and a bad kid?” Well, often the answer is the good kids don’t get caught. The kids that do are stigmatized by felony convictions, are sent to prisons where they end up emulating the wrong role models, etc. The analogy I’m searching for is that many who participated in the crimes mentioned in this article were similarly engaged as a consequence of being influenced by their peers or just doing what kids do…stupid things. From my experience luck is a determining factor that separates the good from the bad in many instances. Mercy and wisdom in combination can be a force for good. America incarcerates more people per capita than any other financially advanced nation on Earth…and some seem hell bent on continuing that tradition, which benefits no one. Murder is one thing, association with a murderer may be something altogether different.

It's called "instrumentality" and is a question we who work in law enforcement constantly ask about people and things that may have facilitated, indeed been indispensable in the commission of a crime.

While I think judges and prosecutors should have some flexibility and discretion in sentencing (especially for juveniles), I support the felony murder rule on principle--as both a liberal and a lawyer. Remember that we are talking about the death of innocent people (except where one of the perpetrators ends up dead). If you participate in an criminal felony where a death is foreseeable--even if unintended--you should be criminally responsible for that death, albeit probably with a somewhat shorter sentence than the person who directly caused the death.

"He traced modern felony murder doctrine to the 1820s, when state legislatures in the United States codified criminal offenses." I believe "felony murder," like much of our criminal law, was a common law doctrine we got from the British and predates the 1820s.

Okay, but last week-end Donald Trump and Steven Miller were laughing about the horror and pain of the children separated from their mothers. They were separated by Trump's order. So if it turns out that children have died or been kidnapped, been harmed in any way, then Trump and Miller are both culpable? ...or would that just be Miller?

Mr. Khalifa, and the other gentleman awaiting trial, is precisely where he deserves to be. There is nothing innocent about being a lookout for a murder. It's a crucial element to the crime actually. He had plenty of chances to stop the crime. He had the choice of not participating at all. Now people are dead because of the cumulative effects his actions and inactions. Effects that were blindingly easy to predict. It seems like, once again, the true victims of the crime are dismissed and forgotten. I wonder if the murdered would like to be able to take pictures with their relatives still, or to have their mothers be able to touch and hold them. They'll never get the chances for a life that Mr. Khalifa still has even behind bars solely because of Mr. Khalifas own choices that he is now being held accountable for. Leave him in his cell where he belongs.

In New York, felony murder requires that the felony murder defendant (the participant in the crime who did not kill anyone) be armed himself or herself. If California law is the same, then Khalifa came to the party with a weapon - presumably with the willingness to use it if necessary to complete the crime. Was Khalifa armed? The story could have used an answer to that question.

Hmm. Did Mr. Khalifa, once he discovered that someone had been seriously injured (and later died), voluntarily go to the authorities and help them solve the case? No? Well, then, I don't have much sympathy. We have an imperfect system, always have and always will, that relies largely on prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not collect pelts. and I'm guessing that the majority of prosecutors do exactly that. My guess is, folks who cooperate with police and help them solve murders likely don't spend as much time in jail as those who do not. Which is as it should be. Again, we have an imperfect system, but a legislature that attempts to remove discretion from judges and prosecutors is not acting in the best interests of justice or the public. Life isn't fair, but there is, or should be, one constant: consequences. If you took part in a burglary/home invasion in an occupied residence and things went sideways, well, you're in a heap of trouble, and you only have yourself to blame. "It would give us our lives back." Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Mr. Khalifa, if he behaves himself in prison, may well be freed some day. That sounds reasonable to me. You go around breaking into occupied houses, you're taking a big gamble, and no casino in the world gives the money back to losers.

We need to keep the rule, as if you go along as a "getaway" driver, or as part of a group of criminals who might use force, you should be liable under the felony murder rule. We can have judicial or parole board discretion exercised after conviction or during your sentence, but the felony-murder rule is too valuable of a weapon against crime to surrender it. Frankly, I prefer that all violent persons be incarcerated under permanent incarceration rules similar to our civil commitment of violent sexual predators -- you do not get out, ever, until you are unlikely to commit another violent act.

All those defending felony murder: Heard of "mens rea"? This is a founding principle of most reasonable legal systems. "Actus rea" is not enough. To have the "mind for the crime" for robbery is one thing. It does not mean you have the "mind for the crime" for murder. If the principles espoused by those commenters defending felony murder are followed through across all areas of the law: The passenger in a car driving over the speed limit (the driver of which is thereby intentionally committing a crime) which then accidentally clips and kills a cyclist or pedestrian thereby commits murder. Nonsense.

From the piece: 'A Michigan Supreme Court ruling that did away with it in that state nearly four decades ago called it “a historic survivor for which there is no logical or practical basis for existence in modern law.”' Ahem. Second Amendment?

"Bad judgment"?! Taking the wrong job, buying the wrong car, even marrying the wrong spouse may be bad judgment. Breaking into someone's house in order to rob them especially an elderly one who you know won't be able to stop you is not simply "bad judgment." I'm very liberal but if you choose to participate in a crime, then you have to accept the consequences of what happens during the committing of it whether or not you wished for or intended those consequences.

What I'm struck by is that Shawn Khalifa was a minor at the time of the crime. How could he have been tried as an adult?

Khalifa was not an innocent bystander but an active participant in a crime that left someone dead. After he saw the homeowner was "seriously hurt", did he call for medical help? It can be anticipated that some burglaries will end in murders. If not murder, he should at least have been convicted of manslaughter and serve serious jail time.

It may have it's flaws, but I agree with the concept of felony responsibility for murder or other crimes. Any party in a criminal act which eventually leads to a killing has his/her share of that event - be it that deadly force rises to commit it or that it comes from resistance to police. All of this results from the original crime and might have been avoided had he/she not taken part, or they's not share the responsibility.

I am as indifferent to the life of Shawn Khalifa as he was to the life of the homeowner whom he left to die on the kitchen floor. I am also indifferent to the pleas of innocence from those who set out to commit a crime which might damage to any extent the life of any being. They were monsters from the moment they acted. Leave them imprisoned.

It's sad to see people are ready to excuse theses criminals. I have no doubt that the commission of many of theses murders wouldn't have happened with out the participation of folks acting as drivers and look outs. They should share in the penalty for the inevitable out come of their actions.

The Felony Murder Rule is the most unjust law on the books. Punishment should fit the crime. Many of those caught in this trap are fist time offenders. They are not murderers. Putting these young people in prison for the rest of their lives with no chance to ever get out is barbaric. Treating them like the most dangerous among us is insane.

It is called unintended consequences. If you set out to commit a felony - be it the lookout or the getaway driver, you are entering into a conspiracy to commit a serious crime. You didn't intend for anyone to die? Tough. As someone who was an investigator for defense attorneys, I am aware that a significant number of people convicted are more stupid than evil. But being stupid and oblivious is no excuse in my eyes. That person's lack of participation, had he chose not to go along, could have tipped the scales in the victim's favor.

What the author ignores is that Khalifa was also an active participant in murdering a third conspirator. He could have called 911. He could have chosen not to participate in murder. He is just as culpable for letting the man die to save his own skin.

I'm sure there are examples of the application of the felony murder rule that can truly be deemed unjust, some were discussed in the article, but this one probably not. Anyone that participates in the burglary of an occupied dwelling (which one can assume is the case at night, for example) is tiptoeing around murder, and when it happens as a result of your collective activity then that's the way it goes. I'm sure the homeowner, if he weren't dead, would agree, as would his family. When you conspire to commit crimes, you need to have a pretty good idea of who your confederates are, and what they are capable of. The young man claims he only stole some chocolates, but saw that the homeowner was hurt. Did he render aid? Did he call for help? Did he turn in his confederates and make sure the supposedly guiltiest parties were brought to justice? Any of those mitigating factors would have likely kept him from having the book thrown at him. The observation that the rule is disproportionately applied to non-white and female criminals does not make their behavior any less criminal, it suggests we should apply it more rigorously to white males with the same vigor. I'm all for prison reform for great swaths of non-violent crimes, so that we can reserve the most serious punishments for those whose collective behavior resulted in the taking of human life or in life-changing physical or psychological injury.

This reminds me of the Officer Walter Schroeder Sr.'s case in Boston in 1970. Katherine Ann Power drove the getaway car in a bank robbery, but did not shoot Officer Schroeder. She was convicted of manslaughter after being on the run for 23 years. Boston peeps may remember this robbery was ostensibly to support anti-Vietnam War efforts, but the bank robbers themselves, not Ms. Power and another intellectual, Susan Saxe, were lowlifes.

With the exception of Canada, where it was declared unconstitutional, most other Common Law jurisdictions have abolished the felony murder rule in name only. In England, for example, its effect is preserved by the Common Law principle of Joint Enterprise. In Australia, it has been enshrined in statutes such as the NSW Crimes Act. And its modern use dates to Hawkins' Treatise of Pleas of the Crown, in 1716, which even distinguished law professors will agree is before the 1820s. Regardless, it remains deeply unfair in its application, if not its original idea.