Quick personal example: My husband's daughter, T, was 17 when her friend called to tearfully blurt that she was pregnant. Could T please drive her to talk to her boyfriend? Sure, of course. So when they got there, T's friend pulled out a hidden knife and stabbed the guy on the spot, 3 times. He died. "Drive!Drive!" as she jumped back into the car. T drove about 8 blocks, pulled into an alley and just sat there a couple minutes, in shock. The friend asked for another ride to the boyfriend's new girl's place, to kill her too. T got out and ran home, laid down trembling. The next morning, she told her parents and they went to the law.
T is now serving life in prison, across the country from her family, because of this felony murder rule. Since she was a minor, the new reform rules mean she gets a hearing in October (after 25 years in federal prison) to hopefully be released with major restrictions, in December this year. The friend was released some years ago, since she was NOT transferred to a zero-tolerance state like PA. IF the boyfriend's family still insists that she be punished for life, there will be nothing we can do. The friend's baby is now in his/her 40's. Sound fair?
422
@deb I'm so sorry that happened to T. It is not fair at all.
54
@deb
You lost me when you said, "The friend was released some years ago, since she was NOT transferred to a zero-tolerance state like PA."
I don't understand. If I understand your facts, everyone should have been tried in the same jurisdiction. Something is missing here.
99
@deb
It depends, whether it's fair or not.
Did T testify at trial (though not required to do so, it could explain to a jury why she drove friend)? Did she raise a defense as to why she was in the car? Just being present in a car and driving someone to see a friend isn't a crime. But was there evidence that she knew what the friend intended to do? Initially, this is all a prosecutorial decision on how to charge the case. Did the DA or AUSA have some evidence showing that T knew this was going to happen or was likely to happen? In some cases, defense attorneys are also dealing with clients who have a prior criminal history (even juvenile) or - in some cases - are in gangs (not assuming T was).
Considering T's age, it does seem an unfair charge and outcome, but there is likely other evidence considered by the prosecutor in deciding why to proceed this way.
65
Not much sympathy here - any person who lies down with rabid dogs deserves waking up to some serious time in prison.
25
If you go out intending to commit a crime and your accomplice commits a murder you deserve to also be punished for that murder. Maybe not to the extent of the killer but at least partly. Your stupid actions enabled that murder by empowering someone else to commit a crime. If you say no in the first place perhaps the crime never happens. Somehow once again the victims are ignored.
32
Lets see next article up? Get rid of the rule that someone who commits arson and a fireman dies, the arsonist is guilty of murder. Or how about this one? Only one person can be guilty of a murder done by two people? Or how about this one NYT? Two guys rob a bank, both with guns, one guy shots and kills a teller, the other guy shots and misses. The guy that misses is not guilty at all. He missed his target so we should feel sorry for him. Poor little Johnny had a bad childhood and his teachers did not like him, and his grandma was mean to him. Its ok Johnny if you rob a bank. Its not your fault.
23
There is nothing arcane about it. It discourages someone from engaging in criminal activity. I feel real sorry for him. His accomplice committed a murder. Nice friends he has. Its simple don't participate in a crime and you don't have to go to prison. Another ridiculous article by the NYT. Lets encourage people to participate in crimes is what the article is saying.
33
Who cares?
You did the crime you share the time.
28
Shame on the NYT for giving this criminal a platform!
Khan was trouble and he hung out with trouble. He knew darn well what was going on- and that makes him a murderer in my book.
33
If you agree to commit a felony and then someone dies, you are a part of that crime and all that it entails.
34
Felony murder is essentially conspiracy to commit a crime resulting in murder and I have no sympathy for the defendants. The decision to enter into an conspiracy to commit crimes (whether robbery, car jacking, human trafficking) can logically and consequentially lead to inadvertent deaths of police or bystanders. Felony murder means the get away driver is just as guilty as the trigger man if death occurs during a violent crime or any crime. Criminals should understand that their criminal liability extends to all harms that befall a victim whether foreseeable or not. I could less whether some moron who decided to rob a liquor store at gunpoint knew the cashier had a heart condition. But for the commission of the crime, the victims would be alive. I shed no tears for these "co-conspirators" who are vicariously liable for the actions of their criminal co- conspirators. These people are not innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They did the crime but now they don't want to do the time. Innocent??? Yeah - just as innocent as the guy who builds the bomb but not the light the fuse.
22
Thank you NY Times.
4
We are currently in a troublesome swing back to the permissive liberal "justice" of the 60s and 70s that brought us the crime wave that persisted into the 90s.
Yes, if you consort with criminals, then you will be hung with them.
You will feel better afterwards, however!
11
I agree with the law - if you dumb enough to be robbing people and and you know your buddy’s got a gun - well sorry - your all in and you should be held accountable just like the moron that pulled the trigger
24
So let me get this straight...
The gist of this article is: "Waaaaaaa....all I did was a robbery, and jail is hard."
Let me enlighten this sniveling snowflake: Had I been the "victim" of your crime, you would have received a death sentence - delivered on the spot by a legally possessed and operated handgun, and you wouldn't have had this opportunity to snivel to the peanut gallery.
24
This video is tasteless. This man robbed someone with tragic consequences. I don't support the law discussed here, but this man is not innocent. He is a felon. I don't want to see his cutsy take on the "injustice." Yuck.
31
Watched the video. Mr. Khan is a murderer without remorse.
21
because murder isn't the only crime that is punishable by the law
9
Unless he tried to stop the killer or, if not possible, turned him in immediately afterwards (even of that meant admitting to the robbery), he is just as guilty.
Mitgefangen, mitgehangen.
12
The author should be executed! Arcane legal rule. The Felony Murder Rule has existed for centuries. The point of the law is to protect innocent civilians. Anyone who is going to commit crimes with others is responsible for their co-conspirators actions. This is a deterrence!
18
If you knew of the law prior to deciding to participate in the original crime, would you have chosen differently?
10
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently rewrote our felony murder rule, within the last year. Under the new rule, the government essentially has to prove the murder case as if the underlying felony were not an issue.
Note, however, that in MA, as in some other states, we don’t distinguish between “principals” and “accessories”in capital cases — everyone is treated as a “principal,” which means that, never mind the felony murder rule, if you participate in some way in a murder, you’re the murderer.
Just for example, in the case which finally got the SJC to change the rule, a young man who provided hooded jackets to his friends so they could carry out a home invasion with their faces masked — but wasn’t present at the home invasion — was convicted of first degree murder (life in prison) after the home invasion turned deadly. Our High Court changed the rule, but not for him — the Court reduced his conviction to second degree and left it at that.
7
I hope you are not looking for sympathy from me. I'm hardly a law and order guy, but the laws that make all parties equally guilty when a criminal act goes wrong makes perfect sense to me. The intent is to prevent crimes by way of tough laws. In jail for life? Sympathy can be found in the dictionary.........between sex and syphilis.
15
The weird thing is if you kill someone with an automobile, you won't be charged for any crime.
5
Lots of info about Adnan. No info about the victim and their family. A fuller story would have been better.
25
How about we just give you 25 years to life for holding someone up? I’m not sympathetic to this man at all.
17
Why do so many Americans need to steal or rob?
5
Cry me a river. The guy Khan didn't intend to kill is still dead and because of Khan's immoral behavior. 16 years was a light sentence considering how long the murdered man will be dead.
18
If you are in on the crime, then you are responsible for the results. Society owes you nothing.
15
The law should be taught to people 10 year old and up. The law is disappointing and lumps things together that should not be.
Criminal laws in each state become shockingly horrible if you come up any criminal procedure. Holes galore for the prosecutor to abuse.
Arcane is the big sirine. All arcane laws should be reviewed and either struck in their entirety or re-written.
There are three primary Calfiornia cases I know which are identical to and parallel to this case. It took enormous resources to overturn a criminal charge against innocent people who JUST really happened to be in the CAR only AFTER, and I mean well after, the commission of a crime took place without that person. The travelor was of no importance to the criminal who acted criminally (with a gun and killed with a gun) and had truely no knowledge of any plan to use a weapon to succeed in a crime.
These are California cases. One young Vietnamese kid was imprisoned similarly to Mr. Khan. He had done nothing. A middle aged woman suffered the same fate by being with guys who held up a liquor store with a gun and something went wrong.
When you are hired by an employer, do you have any notion that the employer might be cheating, stealing, pollluting all against the law? You join to be with the company. Company's have bad reputations but nevertheless, what do you do if you are "riding" along when they commit a crime?
Do the employees go to prison for causing death?
5
What a disgusting video. The idea that a man planned to commit a felony, any felony, particularly a robbery, and HE is trying to rationalize down his sentence? I will never understand differential sentencing based on “severity” of the crime. He chose to rob- a terrifying event for the victim. And now he knows better what sentence he should get? A man died- you took part in it... too bad.
15
And what is the % of back men serving these sentences?
You deserved every day of it.
13
If you go out drinking with friends and then one of your friends drives you home and accidentally hits and kills someone, should you be charged as well?
It seems more consistent that a partner in crime who did not intend or perform the killing should be charged with some level of manslaughter, instead of murder.
6
Oh it is arcane?
Here is another arcane fact: An innocent was murdered and an accomplice to the robbery wants to straighten me out on justice and the arcane aided and abetted by an expert who has the skills to say, well, it is
Arcane.
Perhaps the dead would have liked to have a chance to have talked to the prisoner about the crowd the prisoner was running with before being murdered without an unanimous vote to murder and the arcane fact a robbery might go wrong as not all robbers are reliable upstanding citizens most are. Hard to believe huh?
8
For me, the most important sentence is this one:
“It’s thanks to an arcane legal doctrine that’s been ditched everywhere — except the United States”
This ditching was certainly not done in one night, but after deep and long analysis. And there was a reason why it was ditched.
What I see are readers who instinctively interject without even realizing it that their country is correct and the rest of the world wrong. That’s not surprising that I am getting tired after having lived 12 years here.
3
Accomplices should serve time, but not murder time. Reading some responses here are why we have this prison industrial complex that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year. We need to work on restorative justice and true justice for those who are the true culprits.
I'm always stunned how the hang 'em high crowd is perfectly OK with building hundreds of prisons in our country, with most of the incarcerated in jail for petty drug crimes, ruining their lives and costing our country so much money.
9
With great freedom, comes great responsibility. We have a high incarceration rate because freedom gives people enough rope to hang themselves. Strict punishment may not be a strong deterrent, but who cares? If nothing else, it gets criminals off the street. You do not need to be told twice not to rob/kill/etc... and the decision to do so should not be a gamble based on a potential sentence. Commit a crime, go away. For a long time.
5
“In 2003, Adnan Khan committed a robbery in which one of his accomplices unexpectedly killed their victim.” The point is, when you jointly commit an armed robbery, you are deciding to put lives at risk. It is not very “unexpected” that someone would be killed.
12
I did not waste my time with the video. So here goes my partially informed opinion: If this man participated in the robbery, and had a gun, said gun was carried for one reason. 'nuff said. Maybe half the sentence of what the trigger man got would be appropriate.
5
At the risk of being an unpopular dissenter, when a person sets out for ANY endeavor, legit or criminal, one MUST CONSIDER "what will happen if" it goes not according to plans.
"They" embarked on the robbery with a gun !
"I did not kill anyone" defense? No!
Because next, "they" will say "I did not mean to kill anyone; it was an accident".
Having said that, Adnan appears to have reformed himself.
Let him out "without prejudice".
3
"A newly enacted state law allowed a San Quentin State Prison inmate to walk free Friday after a Contra Costa County judge overturned his felony murder conviction.
During a 9 a.m. hearing Friday in a Martinez courtroom, Judge Laurel Brady resentenced Adnan Khan on his robbery conviction and vacated his murder conviction, said Scott Alonso, a spokesman for the Contra Costa County district attorney’s office.
Khan was convicted for helping plan and execute an Antioch robbery in 2003, when an accomplice fatally stabbed their would-be marijuana dealer. Khan said that he was unaware that a weapon would be used during the crime."
San Francisco Chronicle 1/18/2019
How did they plan to rob without threat of violence?
9
This seems a good piece to ask my fellow commenters: was anyone who is following the Jeffrey Epstein mess surprised/horrified/angry that “cases weren’t brought to court because the Prosecutor concluded he could not win conviction”? Not let a judge or jury decide the case but no sense bothering the DA if he can’t get a win. I am at the point of screaming
As long ago as 1838 it was definitely recognized that, "it is a principle of law, that if several persons act together in pursuance of a common intent, every act done in furtherance of that intent is, in law, done by all. [Alderson,B. in Macklin, Murphy and Others' Case (1838), 168 Eng. Rep. 1136]. Thus, vicarious liability makes every co-felon guilty of every act of his accomplices in furtherance of the felony.
4
In my view the "felony murder rule" should not apply in all instances where someone dies at the hands of a co-defendant, but in some instances it may be just. For example, in the case of a person driving a get away car in an armed robbery it should probably apply, especially where the driver was aware his/her co-defendant intended to brandish a lethal weapon. On the other hand, where a person knows a robbery is going to take place but is unaware his/her co-defendant will use a gun to commit the crime, not so much.
That said, in my view it should most definitely not be used simply to terrify a co-defendant into a terrible plea agreement by asserting the rule applies in each and every case notwithstanding the facts.
5
So the planners of the Charlottesville rally can be prosecuted and imprisoned for the death and damage that resulted. The CEOs of companies can be charged with murder when they cover up defects that cost lives.
I am not holding my breath.
228
@Maureen Steffek
There has to be an underlying criminal act in the context of which the death takes place. As loathsome as the Charlottesville rally was it was not, in and of itself, a criminal act. This means that the organizers cannot be held responsible under the felony murder rule.
25
Those were rich people and they have their own law. It’s called felony innocence and you get to walk no matter what you set in motion. KaChing!
6
@Maureen Steffek
Felony murder applies to a limited set of violent crimes: rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc.
The Charlottesville planner are vile individuals. But they were planning a crime that fits the felony murder rule.
4
This is also the gun issue. Where there is almost no gun control, robbers should expect a good chance that they are responded with guns. So it is like a small war and there are no "unexpected" killings. California may be a bit different.
2
If they get rid this, how can police charge a person's accomplices for the unnecessary lethal force police officers used? Criminals need to held accountable for police violence. (sarcasm)
2
I'm sorry but why do so many have such sympathy for somebody who committed a robbery that resulted in the death of the victim? I certainly do not care if he or his friend pulled the trigger. Both do not belong in society, ever.
15
The felony murder rule is just an instance of conspiracy in general. If you conspire with others, the law holds you responsible for the planned actions and foreseeable contingencies. Murder, a tougher charge than manslaughter, requires malice aforethought, which a conspiracy proves. That and not physical action distinguishes it from manslaughter. This is how John Wilkes Boothe’s co-conspirators (yes, even the inn owner) were rightly executed for the assassination of Lincoln, even though technically only one of them pulled the trigger. Prosecutorial discretion leads to many abuses, but this isn’t one of them: it’s a distraction.
6
If being complicit means being culpable to the same degree of severity, then all of these well meaning white commenters (or culturally white-seeming) are liable to justice for the social, economic, and political violence that has put communities of color into pressure cookers that disadvantage them from the get-go, which inevitably leads to desperate circumstances and outcomes. Shall we haul them off to jail, too, for their systemic predation and violence in their economic beliefs and voting habits and socially complicit behavior?
The world isn’t morally convenient. And while some commenters seem to think that it is and we should throw the book at people, it strikes me they do nothing to evaluate how they may, in fact, be responsible for the very issues over which they seem so quick to lock up people of color.
What did that old white guy, Thomas More, say? “Society first creates thieves and then decries thievery.” I love the rush to judgment and demand for vengeance under the banner of accountability. Where is their accountability for the society they create that renders whole communities broken, chewed up, and used?
5
What is the ORIGIN of this felony-murder rule? Perhaps the early days after emancipation? I would like to see laws which have bankers held responsible for murder [death by any cause] following improper evictions/ repossessions. White collar crimes MUST be treated based on effect rather than intent.
2
The problem with Felony Murder is that prosecutors vastly over charge.
It puts BOTH the guilty and the innocent in jail. The person who drove with no criminal intent and no knowledge of an underlying felony, who reported it after that fact goes to jail--demonstrating that good intent--even after cooperating, goes to jail for life. The person who was an accomplice, who planned the underlying felony, goes to jail.
Regular Americans can tell when something stinks AND THIS STINKS. It's unjust. Just because a prosecutor can get away with charging it doesn't make it just. Prosecutors must use better judgement, not try to win at all costs, simply because they can and it looks good on their record.
2
16 years in jail while being an accomplice to murder seems like a light sentence. Pulling the trigger should get a longer sentence.
The person they killed hasn't seen those 16 years. As for the arcane aspect of the law, I'd say cutting off limbs or ripping out tongues is arcane, debtors prison is arcane, but not this.
7
This arcane law always made sense to me. Just holding a man accountable for a pregnancy, TOO, even though he didn't intend to make a baby. That's how babies are made!
Take responsibility for your actions! The actions and outcomes of committing a crime are not predictable.
"We only thought we were committing a lesser crime, but that one was "stupider" than us, and killed someone."
4
So let me summarize the argument.
A gang/team/crew gets together and plans a robbery, home invasion, rape. They procure weapons to carry on the crime.
During commission of that crime planned and carried out by all of them, innocent people (say your daughter, mom, wife) are killed.
And the argument is that only the person who actually pulled the trigger of the murder should be convicted with murder?
It would be wonderful to hear the Democrats make that argument, and insure an easy Trump victory.
10
Has anyone seen the astonishing video that was just released showing NYC police officers being repeatedly drenched with buckets of water by, dare I say 'thugs,' in Manhattan? The anti-police rhetoric that Mayor Bill de Blasio regularly espouses has led to increased lawlessness in this city. The New York Times did a huge piece recently on the on-going crisis in Baltimore after local officials there handcuffed the police from doing their jobs during rioting in that city. If you haven't seen the video I'm referring to, seek it out and see for yourself. Most Americans care about law and order, and we're seeing it slipping away in many cities.
(Don't get me started on Chicago.) All this is to say, I'm even less sympathetic to the plight of bad guys like Mr. Khan. So he spent only 16 years in prison after being convicted of murder despite not pulling the trigger? Cry me a river.
7
I flat out don't agree. The whole point of punishing death in the comission of a felony as a capital crime, as well as punishing everyone involved, is to deter this kind of behavior. Adnan Khan is such a spoiled brat, he STILL can't take responsibility for taking part in something where someone was likely to get seriously hurt! Sounds like his problem, and he should have spent the rest of his life in jail. Atleast until he grows up enough to impress a parole board. And that would have happened by now if it was ever likely to.
8
To describe this as “arcane” is comedic to a lawyer. That’s all.
7
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this is a slickly produced piece (the chess pieces, the globe, etc.) and Mr. Khan is telegenic and articulate. And he was a willing accomplice in a stupid crime (robbing a weed dealer, for goodness' sake!) where the dealer was murdered. All this brings out the cynic in me.
However, the actual murderer, Mr. Page, got a lighter sentence. Mr. Khan should have known better than to get involved, but, IF we are to believe him, he had no idea that Page would pull out a knife. Naive, yes, but that doesn't mean he deserves a life sentence. As he acknowledges, he did deserve prison, but he didn't have equal responsibility for the weed dealer's death.
1
I know of an 18 year old in California who was driving a car with two others who committed an armed robbery in a parking lot. They stole a cell phone (to buy drugs). The victim followed them in his car. One of the other people in the car fired one shot that missed everything. The district attorney charged all three with attempted murder. The system is now designed to overwhelm all but the most wealthy and connected with a mountain of charges and ul;tra long prison sentences, thereby ensuring plea bargains and in all probability ensuring that the accused never become functioning or contributing members of society. What's the point? These ultra long sentences and heavy charges never deterred anyone.
1
Thank you for your story. I am not aware of this law until reading your story Thank You. I wish the law will be ditched soon. I am glad you are out.
1
Did they participate in the crime voluntarily? If so, then what's the problem? Is it because they discovered the price they paid wasn't worth the potential upside? It's too bad they didn't make that calculation beforehand - then they might not have done the crime at all.
You were part of the crime, you do all of the time. If that's unfair, then don't do the crime.
13
The felony "team" expects to share in the spoils of the robbery, etc., so why should they get off scott-free if someone on the team commits a murder in furtherance of the scheme? So they'd get all the reward of the illegal and dangerous (to others) scheme, but none of the risk? What a great deal for criminals everywhere! The point of the felony-murder rule is that murders, even unplanned, are far more likely to happen during the commission of a felony, and if you participate in a felony you're part of the chain that results in the murder. I actually didn't know California had changed this, and I'll be writing my legislators to change it back.
10
I’m totally unmoved. What we should do is warn people about the felony murder rule. Anyone thinking of committing a crime should know the risks involved.
20
If you participate in a crime that results in someone's death as Mr. Khan did it shouldn't be treated as a murder, but the participation was a contributing factor to that death. While a Life sentence or a death sentence aren't appropriate a significant extension of his sentence is, treating that death as part and parcel with the underlying crime. It is very fair that he assume some responsibility for that death.
6
Was this fact checked? Wikipedia: "The rule was abolished in England and Wales by section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957, and in Northern Ireland by section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966; but its effect is preserved by the application of the Common Law principle of "Joint Enterprise". In England and Wales, the definition of murder requires only an intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, rather than specific intent to kill; the effect is the same as that of the felony murder rule applied to crimes of personal violence, though not to all felonies." Not dissimilar results for some other jurisdictions he cites.
A lot also depends on the jurisdiction, Where I have practiced, I have seen prosecutors back off of the rule's application where it just did not fit the offender and there was cooperation. Also, the rule has different iterations in the fifty states. Finally, the quality of the defense has something to do with it, with defendants who have lawyers from good public defender programs on average better off.
6
On the comment that all accomplices are liable for the commission of the crime, I think the argument rather tackles the harshness of the sentence. The speaker has served sixteen years. Isn’t this enough for conspiracy to commit robbery? I also think that even if the rule is preserved for the sake of public safety or as a deterrent, it should not be enforced indiscriminately; different cases merit individual consideration. This leads me to my question, could we all say in absolute impartiality that the name “Khan” or the likes does not in any way cloud our judgement as we express support or discord for such case/rule?
I really don't see a problem here. Khan commits a robbery, one of his buddies kills someone, and Khan argues that he is only tangentially accountable. He should have thought about potential outcomes before the robbery. Crime rates are sure to go up in California with this type of thinking.
18
If the purpose of running the op-Ed by the NYT was to advance the cause of violent felons, boy did it backfire. The writer commits a horrific crime and argues that he was punished to harshly because he only wanted to rob but not kill? I agree with most other readers that he should still be in jail.
26
"One of the basic principles of a fair justice system is that you are punished for the crimes you commit, not those committed by other people."
This is simply not true. If you enter into a criminal conspiracy - say rob a bank - you are accountable for all the crimes contemplated by the conspirators, even if you never enter the bank. If you get someone drunk and then allow them to drive you can be charged for their crimes.
11
If you lay-down with the dogs, you're gonna get fleas. The life you live is in part based on the company you keep. Maybe harsh, but not so arcane.
13
Throughout his glib, self-centered video Oped, Mr. Khan made no mention whatsoever of the person his accomplice -- his teammate -- in the robbery murdered. It's too Mr. Khan's his time behind bars didn't allow him to develop a little empathy -- maybe the kind that would have presented him from helping to play a role in the mere robbery he glossed over so quickly.
A good thing about this piece is I learned my own state is one of those whose misguided Legislatures were foolish enough to ditch this common-sense rule. Time to get to work reinstating it.
11
Hmmm, could we apply this to certain politicians for the death of Iraqi civilians and members of our armed forces during that senseless war?
If you thought this video would generate sympathy, it certainly did not work for me. I think the felony murder rule makes perfect sense.
19
One of my students had a high school friend whose boyfriend asked for a ride to the convenience store to buy cigarettes. While there, he decided to rob and kill the clerk with a handgun. He came out of the store and they drove away. The young woman had no knowledge of the crime until later. But she wound up serving a murder sentence for HIS crime.
It doesn’t sound fair to me because there was no conspiracy—she was duped. How you prove that in court, I don’t know. It’s another example of bad boyfriends being the quickest way for a girl to get in trouble.
4
Sounds like your friend participated in a robbery. At the very least she aided and abetted the murderer fleeing the scene. She should have left the car running and run away as fast as she could- and call the police. Sounds like your friend decided to stick around and hangout.
2
I don’t believe in mass incarceration like we have in this country, and reforms are definitely needed. I don’t think this law should be on the list of changes that need to be addressed though. This law is meant to reduce violent crime by discouraging the use of lethal weapons by criminals working together. This isn’t some kind of a secret law but one that is commonly known. I don’t see many advantages that would come about by changing it. We don’t know how many lives have been saved because of some criminals unwillingness to participate in a violent crime because of this law. It seems likely that it has saved many. Of course, I’m sure some lives have also been lost also because it puts criminals in a more desperate situation, after an accomplice committed murder and out of desperation more lives were lost. It’s not really fair to compare the United States with many other countries in this particular case because of the proliferation of firearms that are not controlled. I know a knife was used in this case, but often firearms are used.
6
Although there are instances when it seems the state pursues results that are disproportionate to the conduct, the rule is rational and intended for a good purpose. It seeks to prevent crimes from occurring by discouraging persons from even beginning down the road to criminal activity. To the extent the law prevents the formation of a criminal alliance, it reduces crime and victimization. If the fact that he killed no one bothers you, you must really have a problem with conspiracy law under which a crime does not even have to be committed for guilt to be established. Similar to the felony murder rule, this is to prevent criminal acts before they even occur. I don't think this is bad policy.
8
@Robert
Also do not overlook that in his example he refers to the police killing of a fleeing robber as "murder". Hardly the guy to lecture society.
5
We have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.
We spend more money on prisons than any country in the world.
We have some of the toughest sentencing in the world.
We have some of the highest, if not THE HIGHEST rates of crime in virtually every category of crime on the books, from brutal murders and mass shooting to white collar crime and everything in between.
We have some of the highest rates of recidivism on the planet.
So, please explain to me all the deterrence that mandatory sentences like this have? In fact explain to me how incarceration and tough sentencing is achieving its goal.
WE need prisons and some people need to be there, but the sentence should be just, and we should look at the bigger picture – environment, poverty, education, mental illness etc.
And if one more person says that Khan and his accomplices used a gun I am going to scream. It was knife, not a gun, and facts matter.
8
@Equilibrium
And Khan did not wield the knife.
And California did not eliminate FM. They just clarified who can be charged with it. Still lots of room for the lock em up crowd.
California Senate Bill 1437 was signed into law on September 30, 2018. The bill sets forth California's new laws on the crime of felony murder.
Under SB 1437, the felony murder rule only applies when a defendant:
directly kills a person in the commission of a felony, or in an attempted felony;
aids and abets the killing;
is a major participant in the killing; or,
when the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.
2
Counterpoint: you have a duty to thwart the felony. If you are an active participant, you are responsible for the outcome of the felony. Do not expect prosecutors to sort out who was responsible for the death that occurred during the felony you committed, because you were a vital component of that felony, and that person might not have died but for your assistance in the felony.
4
Obviously, the rationale for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in a crime in the first place. It isn't fair Mr. Khan was sentenced to life in prison, but if he knew a robbery was going to occur and that guns were going to be present, it's not as though he got caught smoking a joint in the public park either.
4
If I felt prison actually rehabilitated people perhaps I wouldn't think of these sentences as being a total waste of a persons life. Face it, sending someone to prison for 4 years vs. 20 years will achieve absolutely nothing. It will only cost the taxpayer in housing these people for years on end. People are so quick to justify long prison sentences without having a clue what it's like and whether it actually achieves anything. Retribution could be achieved with one year in prison. Imagine going away for a year and tell me that would cause you to reflect?
1
I first learned about this law while following a case where a teenage boy was charged with murder. I believe he was 17 and he was with a younger boy who was maybe 16. They were driving around a residential neighborhood pretending to sell candy for a fundraiser, but really were pocketing the money. The older kid was in the car when the younger apparently decided to break into a house.
Even the kid who broke into the house did not expect to find a person inside. In the end, he brutally killed a woman in that house.
The woman's husband was an attorney in town. It was a big deal in a small town.
There was a push to treat both teens as adults. The older kid, who was only in the car, got a murder charge. In this case, that was absurd. He was a kid, and he didn't even know his friend was going to break into that house.
I have never forgotten that case. This is why the law is wrong.
But geesh, if you break into my house with a gun, you are responsible for putting me in danger, even if you don't pull the trigger. After all, if you trip on my sidewalk while you're making your getaway, i can be held liable for your injuries. If you break into my house and anyone gets hurt, you don't get to complain about injustice.
5
I don’t agree with Mr Khan.
When a group of persons takes firearms / other lethal weapons and commit a planned crime , like robbery, grievous injuries and fatal results can reasonably be expected . It doesn’t matter who actually pulls the trigger or stabs an innocent victim. Whole criminal group of co-conspirators shares equal responsibility .
16
@Raza
Correct. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
1
From the CA court's decision denying Khan's habeas corpus petition to review his sentence:
"Page stabbed McNutt repeatedly outside Page's van immediately after defendant [Khan] hit him over the head inside the van in an effort to steal marijuana from him, as part of a crime concocted with two others earlier in the day."
In other words, Khan's confrontation with the robbery victim turned violent, and then escalated to homicide when Khan's accomplice joined the melee. It should be reasonably foreseeable to anyone participating in a robbery that the victim might resist leading to violence.
Also, the participation of each accomplice emboldened the others to go through with the robbery. True, Khan did not personally kill the victim, but his participation set in motion the homicidal machine.
Whatever might be the deterrent force of the felony-murder rule, at the very least, it has the salutary effect of removing from society criminals willing to use violence. And Khan had no compunction about using violence. According to the court decision, Khan stated to the police
“[I] hit him in his head ‘cause this guy, he looked back and tried to, you know, tried to get me, wrestle with me or something. So I just, my first instinct, just hit him."
Khan is lucky that CA gave him a way to escape his murder sentence. Here in NY, however, I would prefer that we keep behind bars as long as possible those whose "first instinct" is to resort to violence.
19
@Alex - "[Khan] hit him over the head" before the partner stabbed the victim to death.
Well this puts a different light on things, now doesn't it.
4
I can't muster much sympathy for those who engage in robbery. Most of the time they get away with it. If you choose to engage in violent crime, you're responsible for the outcomes, even when your fellow criminal does the direct action. The driver of the getaway car is still a participant, an enabler of the criminal activity. It's the same with drunk driving - the penalties are higher when someone dies as a result.
There is one case where I feel a bit torn - if your buddy is killed in the attempt, you can be held accountable for his "murder." And that seems rather odd.
2
I disagree with the headline of this article. "Arcane" means secret, mysterious, known to only a few. The felony murder law is known by anyone who has watched a few episodes of Law and Order.
22
There is a practical reason for the felony murder rule, at least as it applies to someone murdered by one of the persons involved in the subject crime. Without it, two people involved in a felony murder could each claim (and agree ahead of time that each will claim) that the other person was the one who actually did the killing. This would create reasonable doubt as to which one was the killer resulting in no one being convicted of the murder. Something to think about.
17
..because you willingly participated in a serious crime that resulted in an aggravated murder. Of course only one person can pull the trigger to fire the fatal shot, that does not absolve rest of the participants.
17
1. This isn't an arcane law. All reasonably literate people know about it. 2. One reason we punish people with a judicial process is to prevent revenge killings by victims' families. Lifting the responsibility from people like Mr Khan will set that project back, t seems to me. Imagine, your cohorts murder my son, daughter, etc.--and you aren't held responsible because you didn't consider the possible consequences of your actions. I'm supposed to shrug my shoulders?
17
I was pickpocketed last week in the grocery store. I think they used the “distraction” technique. Within two hours, they had fanned out to various Walmarts and Targets and spent a pretty amazing amount of money. Thankfully, my credit card companies will cover the loss. There were also gift certificates in my wallet and that money cannot be recovered. I also have to get new IDs.
It amazed me that these professional criminals could operate as one, and so rapidly. It was clear that they were practiced and knew what they were doing. There were certainly moments in time that one of them might have gotten caught. Then, he/she might have implicated the others. It’s a risky but profitable enterprise. Everyone has to do their part and count on the others to do theirs.
I have no idea what drove these people to do what they did. Nobody was killed and I kept having to remind myself of that as my hands were shaking, writing down the information that the credit card companies were giving me for the police report. What I am sure of is that emotional harm was done to me last Wednesday by people who broke the law. I’m not a spring chicken. What if I had had a heart attack or stroke because of my upset?
I think that a group of people who intentionally break the law, who collude together to do wrong, should be punished accordingly and as a group.
12
@Kathryn
What happened to you was a terrible violation. Thank goodness that you will be OK (once you get your life back together and recover from the shock). And of course every member of the band of miscreants that violated you should face the same punishment. But the situation covered by felony murder is a bit different. If one of the miscreants gets shot and killed by an unwilling victim next time they could all end up charged with felony murder. That’s right - one of the criminals gets shot and all the others get charged with murder. Our criminal justice system should not function this way, and our overflowing prisons don’t need more dubious murder charges.
I don’t know.
If the accomplice was unarmed but knew the other was armed and continued in the conspiracy to commit a crime that resulted in the death of someone it is almost the same to me and deserves almost the same sentence.
Almost.
8
Basically, you're taking about saving the criminal from undue risk when committing a crime. When you engage in a criminal act, you take the risk that the head cases you hang out with might have a detrimental effect on your life.
19
Ok. So this person is crying because he had to go to prison for 16 years? His victim is dead.
If you and your friends get together to commit a felony, you deal with all of the consequences that flow from your crime. Period. All of this "I was 18" nonsense doesn't pull at my heartstrings at all. At 18, I knew not to rob people.
Oh we should feel badly for him because he trusted his criminal friend? Well, criminals are not to be trusted. A person who will steal from a stranger, will obviously have no qualms about lying to a "friend."
Our system was clearly fair and merciful to this person, as he did not receive the death sentence his gang saw fit to mete out to their victim.
The only glitch I see is where a person is required to go to prison for a justifiable homicide, eg where a police officer kills a suspect. In such cases the homicide is (i) justifiable (so no jail time is warranted) and (ii) is not done in the commission of/in furtherance of the felony (since the police are there to thwart the felony) -- so felony murder statutes should not apply.
Otherwise, I am content with felony murder statutes.
12
I support the felony murder rule for two reasons. One is that you are actually responsible for the actions of your accomplices. Let's not to confuse a situation with a party gone wrong, where you invite guests and one of them gets out of control and commits a crime. This isn't the situation at hand. You conspired with your accomplices to commit a violent crime. There is a very high risk that it will go wrong and innocent people will die, and everyone knows that, yet willingly participates anyway. So, everyone on it is guilty, in my opinion. Don't want to be responsible for your accomplices, don't have any, or, even better, don't commit robbery. There are no innocent robbers in the group if one of them commits a murder. Next thing you know we will blame the victim for resisting us. "Hey, we didn't plan to kill you but you resisted. How unfortunate!" I would include a getaway driver as well, even though he is outside and waiting in the car. Why? Because he is aiding and abetting. The crime wouldn't be possible if it weren't for him.
Another reason, if all deny the killing, so should everyone be let go free of murder? I don't think so. It isn't always clear who did the killing. That should not mean that the deed goes unpunished, or we will invite more killings.
9
Unpopular thought, but I actually agree with the “arcane” law. If you choose to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for the actions of your accomplices. Don’t want to? Don’t commit the crime. Let’s pretend the victim had a heart attack during the course of their crime...how is that different? Zero sympathy here.
10
I agree that someone who did not commit murder should not be charged with murder. Apart from that, someone who conspires to gang up and rob someone needs to be locked away from civil human beings for a long, long time, until they are very old and feeble. Just not on murder charges.
3
If there is a lynching, is the person who applies the noose the only murderer? If there is a group rape and murder, is the only murderer the one who pulled the trigger? If two shooters enter a school and only one hits his targets, is the other guilty only of attempted murder?
The felony murder rule applies only to crimes that are "inherently dangerous." Lynching, murder-rape, and school shootings are inherently dangerous. If the felony murder rule is limited to such crimes, as its definition suggests, then it is a just and appropriate criminal rule.
You need to keep the law where it makes sense and otherwise eliminate it. Getting rid of it across the board is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
7
You enter a conspiracy to commit a serious crime with others as part of your team. It is a risky enterprise with a high probability of violence. Violence indeed does occur, and an innocent person is killed.
That's the thing about criminal conspiracies to undertake crimes with great potential of harm to innocents and victims. You are part of the team, and share responsibility..
5
Slick video production, great teeth and modulated tones should not persuade anyone any one that serving sixteen years for committing a felony during which someone lost their life is too long a sentence. There appears to be very little remorse evident in this presentation and no humility.
18
If you participate in a crime where innocent lives are risked, your participation connects you with any deaths that occur. You may have only called for help from a fellow participant when one of the innocents fought back, but that kill shot was yours.
3
Despite his pathetic argument (in the rhetorical sense), Mr. Khan still engaged in a violent, armed crime that led to someone’s death. He deserved to be incarcerated. He can play victim all he wants, but the true victims are the relatives and friends of the deceased.
That said, robbery and similar crimes are economically motivated, and as a society, we MUST do all we can to rectify the rampant income inequality in our country.
However, poverty does not excuse violence.
7
I don't buy it all. This guy made a decision to commit a crime with others who also had a gun. Then when the one with the gun killed an innocent, I assure you this guy didn't go "oh my god" and turn himself in along with providing evidence against the one who pulled the trigger.
He is no innocent at all. He knew they were going to threaten someone to give them what they wanted. He knew they were going to steal and try and get away with it. He knew they had guns. He is as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger.
The only problem I have is why did he get out in 16 years if he was sentenced to life?
3
Perhaps if Mr. Khan and the other accomplices had not agreed to aid the killer in the robbery, the victim would be alive. Has Mr. Khan thought about that?
5
There should be a high crime and misdemeanor rule that would see trump's enablers also get punished along with him.
1
May I have a go at this issue, because it's not as simple as it seems, well at first glance.
Capital punishment/long sentencing is apparently what has happened.
why shouldn't
the desperate perpetrator murder all
witnesses?
Because my rhetorical question has to do with the crime of murder--there are degrees of accessory.
My point is the accessory whom did not murder
ought to be treated less harshly by law.
Otherwise, the actual murdering may include
the victim, his family, relatives, and friends
whom would be questioned by police ?
1
The felony murder rule acknowledges (properly, I would argue) that committing certain kinds of crimes and carrying certain kinds of weapons during the course of those crimes is inherently dangerous.
Here’s a hypothetical: two bank robbery partners are able to get ahold of a single gun and decide to bring it to their next bank robbery. Clearly, this raises the risk for everyone of someone getting shot, even though only one robber can carry the gun at a time. What does it matter how they chose who between them would carry the gun? The felony murder rule should incentivize each of them to chart the safer course, which is leaving the gun at home. If they choose to take the gun, then they BOTH know they have raised the risk substantially and are therefore both culpable for a murder flowing from that.
3
The felony murder rule is why it's so important for those who are planning on committing a crime with a friend or significant other, to sit down together and agree, preferably in writing, what kind of violence both of you are comfortable with committing during the crime. If you're not comfortable discussing this alone with your partner try using a third party. Talking about this ahead of time can avoid misunderstandings and hurt feelings (as well as long prison sentences) down the road.
11
Many commenters here support the felony murder rule (FMR) by inventing interesting and plausible scenarios illustrating what happens when it is uncertain who pulled the trigger or wielded the knife, or . . . But what's at issue here is the AUTOMATIC invocation of the FMR and that would include every instance in which a co-perpetrator is tried and convicted of murder even when it is clear who committed the actual murder and that the co-perpetrator did not. Where the evidence is clear, I believe we ought not to apply the FMR. One salutary effect it can have is that not applying it would very likely incentivize the non-murdering co-perpretator to cooperate with law enforcement.
Mr. Khan makes a good point when he says that he never even heard of the felony murder rule until after he was arrested. There ought to be a rule that every high school guidance counselor approached by a student who expresses an interest in pursuing a life of crime, must specifically advise the student about the felony murder rule and obtain the student's written acknowledgement that the felony murder rule has been adequately explained to him/her. Knowledge is power.
10
The felony murder rule is a tool to encourage cooperation to arrest and convict the actual murderer as well as a reason for individuals capable of thought not to engage in crime. If you want to avoid prison for felony murder don’t commit crime. It works well in all situations as well, don’t do crime if you can’t do the time. People not guilty that are convicted is entirely different issue and needs to be addressed.
2
This law is still in place because the people pretty much agree with it.
8
The writer doesn’t want to grasp that he committed “murder” when he didn’t plan for it or cause the death. He glosses over the purpose of the felony murder rule which stands as a deterrent to certain crimes. The rule applies to the commission of certain felonies, i.e. rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary and arson, where someone dies as a result of the commission of the crime. Certainly, death or serious bodily harm can foreseeably occur when a criminal enterprise involving those crimes takes place.
While it may be arcane, felony murder should make folks think twice before committing a serious felony. As is said, “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.”
8
The United States has the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the world, as well as the HIGHEST number of inmates in the WHOLE WORLD. As a comparison, even China and India with FAR LARGER populations have lower incarceration rates as well as FEWER inmates!!!
Do high incarcerations make the US any safer???
According to the link below the crime index among OECD countries, the US has the fourth-worst crime index among 33 OECD countries listed in the link!!
Obviously locking up people is NOT making the US ANY SAFER!!!
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp
3
@S. Roy Good comment if the only reason for locking people up is to deter crime. If that were the only criterion then we should lock people only if there is good statistical evidence that prison is indeed a deterrent for that crime. I guess that domestic violence might not be deterred by the threat of prison, yet you could argue that other factors (e.g. public safety; the desire of society to strongly demonstrate that it does not approve of some things) should also be considered.
2
Sorry, but if you help to murder somebody, even if you didn't pull the trigger, then you should be held responsible. Or are the members of a lynch mob not guilty of murder, with only the person who physically hangs the victim at fault?
13
"It's thanks to an arcane legal doctrine that's been ditched everywhere - except the United States"
Hmmm ... not quite. In the English (not Scottish) legal system the principle of "joint enterprise" remains, with sometimes controversial consequences. The following extract from a 2016 BBC News piece explains the background. It concerns a murder case, but joint enterprise can be applied to any crime in England.
" ... a powerful legal doctrine known as joint enterprise which allows the prosecution of members of a group or gang for murder when it cannot be proved which member of the group inflicted the fatal blow.
Joint enterprise ... in recent times ... has been used as a highly effective way of prosecuting homicide ...
However, it is highly controversial because, many believe, it lowers the burden of proof on the prosecution and allows those who are simply too morally remote from the crime, bit-part players or not even players at all, to be swept up in a prosecution and convicted on the basis that they were all "in it together".
What makes joint enterprise so contentious is the test that lies at its heart.
In murder cases, it does not require a member of the group to intend to kill or commit serious harm. It simply requires them to foresee that another member "might" kill, or at its lowest level of culpability, "might" inflict serious harm.
If that test is passed and a person is convicted of murder, they will receive the mandatory life sentence."
4
Exactly!
It goes back to Roman law if I remember correctly, clearly is part of German present-day law, and for lots of goods reasons.
It is the US criminal justice system that is completely, totally dysfunctional to the point of being anything but just. That is what makes some judgements look awkward, but not what the author wants to make us believe. There is nothing arcane about that principle, quite the contrary. If you want to commit a non-violent crime choose your accomplices well or live with the consequences.
1
Arcane in the sense of very old in the common law and well established, although there are different approaches by jurisdiction. An excellent rule generally.
8
The felony murder rule should not be disturbed if for no other reason than it provides great material for bar examination questions.
5
Please tell me you write for some publication. I need to read more of your analysis. @Jay Orchard
Opinions are going to be all over the place on this.
I don't think people go out with people looking to go to a bar (or a library) they get in a car - and it's never been discussed and all of a sudden the friend sees someone and says hey - let's rob someone. It's usually discussed before.
If it's been discussed before, the accomplice knows the person is going to commit the crime or has these tendencies and that's a friendship they should end. Or at least not go anywhere with them. There's a tendency for robbery to go awry
This has come up a lot recently. A school was marked by graffiti, senior prank, and in all cases - the excuse - after the people were caught was from one of the people - I didn't know they were write what they did. I was just with them.
Hindsight is always 20/29
I'm sorry, no sympathy on my part.
2
Sorry bub, you ARE just as guilty, and if this rule were not in place you criminals would be pointing the finger at each other, lying to put the blame on the other guy. YOU and your crimies don't get to say what is just. Whether you expect the bad outcome or not is the issue. Do yourself a favor, don't rob.
16
@CK
Yes guilty of robbing. Guilty of murder? That seems to be a matter of opinion here and it seems to depend on which state the crime was committed (i.e. not universal). All crimes are not the same. That's why a lot of countries do not have this particular law.
1
In general, I *should* be onboard with this, but oddly not.
If you’re committing a crime with others in some sort of organized fashion, it’s a conspiracy, and ultimately, co-conspirators all should take the blame in the same fashion. SIt’s not necessarily entirely fair, but it takes the onus off the court for determining anything beyond guilt or innocence.
Apportioning degrees of responsibility for a murder committed during the commission of a crime is a matter of weighing conflicting claims from multiple untrustworthy narrators....and I see a lot of room for miscarriages of justice there.
I’d rather have all co-conspirators risk similar punishment if apprehended - it might act as a check on behavior.
15
To all the "throw away the key" folks, you can't have it both ways. Let anyone working at a company involved in illegal activities be held fully liable for the crime(s). Not fair? Well, this isn't either.
7
@The F.A.D.
I think there are qualitative differences between being a member of a small number of people conspiring to commit a crime - all of whom are (at least nominally) aware of the risks - and an employee in a non-executive position at a company who may not have knowledge of executive and/or overall corporate wrongdoing.
That’s not to say that employees who *are* aware should not face consequences (many do) but it also acknowledges that many employees who are otherwise not complicit are thrown under the bus by others seeking to escape punishment.
6
If Adnan Khan hadn't agreed to and participated in (perhaps even planned) that robbery, would the victim still be alive today?
That is the what we have to consider. Certainly first degree murder doesn't seem like the right charge in most of these cases as how could they have premeditated an apparently spontaneous action by their partner. However, there should be some culpability for setting in motion the events that cost a human life.
The irony here is that those people who most vehemently support letting Khan off probably also think Officer Pantaleo "murdered" Eric Garner for setting in motion the events that led to Garner's fatal asthma attack...
11
There is no denying that the culture in the U.S. is set up to convict and lock away as many people as possible. Why? 1) For-profit prisons. Need to feed the system! 2) Fear of "criminals" seems to be causing people to see everyone as a potential criminal for just being near a crime scene. 3) inability to see nuances in intent, and let emotions overrule rationality. 4) Unequal justice system where white collar criminals get off because they have high-up connections and poor or brown/black-skinned folks go to jail because they are seen as dangerous "others".
5
@Maggiemae No question that in practice our criminal justice system unfairly targets those with the least power. However, that fact should not be used to argue that we should change laws to absolve people of clear criminal responsibility. Racial and power bias is pretty extreme in our justice system. That is what we should try to fix.
3
The felony murder rule is a great rule. It applies to a very narrow set of violations, all of which an offender knows or should know could potentially end with a dead victim. It is designed to deter egregious conduct (like armed robbery) that needlessly exposes innocent people to life-threatening situations.
Sorry, but if you choose to rape, rob, or kidnap someone and that person ends up dead, I could care less whether the victim's death was your intent. I could care less that, despite the inherent danger associated with your conduct, you genuinely believed you would be able to pull it off without anyone dying. And I could care less that another person's conduct was more responsible for the death than your own. The underlying crime is bad enough that I could care less how long you end up in jail.
20
It's similar to vicarious liability- that which is created when an employer is charged for the bad acts he can generally anticipate his employee will do in his general name.
It's a strong disincentive to commit serious crime because the group of thugs is only as safe as its weakest member will act. Given criminals are not the brightest, throwing in with them is a fool's bargain. A person has died violently so we impose a harsh penalty, and ignorance of that law is no excuse.
7
the american justice system is broken on so many levels it would take an overhaul of the entire racket to fix it. for starters there is simply too much behavior that has been criminalized. this gives the police and prosecutors too many options for feeding the prison system which is under the control of the unions representing prison workers. the unions is turn influence politicians who make the laws that criminalize behavior. its a vicious cycle with no end in sight.
1
@allen Criminalizing behavior is sadly what happens when any society gets frightened of some act (smoking weed is a good example). A separate problem is making draconian laws that can be enforced at will, like the speeding laws we have, which all favored people are allowed to violate (I always get away with 10 miles over the speed limit), while those not favored can be pulled over for even a 3 MPH violation. Allowing law enforcement to arrest whom they will by setting separate thresholds for violating noise laws, public vagrancy, crossing between sidewalks, is the real problem.
1
I absolutely agree this should be changed, and it’s bad law. However it is not true that this legal doctrine is unique to the US - there’s a famous case used to teach law students in Germany for example where someone was charged with murder when their accomplice was killed by a person they tried to rob.
1
This rule doesn't make sense. I remember a case where a robbery suspect was killed by a store clerk, and still his accomplice was charged with felony murder, since the robbery resulted in the death of his partner! This isn't what justice looks like.
6
My non-lawyer understanding is that one reason the prosecutors like a felony murder charge is that it's something big to hold over the head of the people who did not commit the actual murder. this is a big incentive to get them to testify against the murderer in exchange for a plea to a lesser charge.
Is this true?
1
I should be shocked by this, but I'm not, because nothing about the US criminal justice system surprises me anymore.
Oh, so people clearly and obviously innocent of murder (with no involvement whatsoever in the planning or execution of a murder) are convicted of murder anyway, just because they commited robbery? Oh, sure! Multiple people getting tried for the same crime by the same prosecutor in separate trials, even though only one of them could possibly be guilty? It happens -- only in the United States. I wonder if we might be better off replacing our entire justice system with the Russian one in its entirety.
1
This is why sometimes I consider myself a radical rather than a progressive. I think the law referenced in the article is just fine as it stands. If you commit armed robbery and something goes wrong and your buddy shoots someone and they die, that’s also on you. Perhaps you shouldn’t be doing that? That said, the criminal Justice System does need an overhaul from the ground up primarily because multiple, reliable, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that the justice you received if you are poor and a Person of Color is, in general, dramatically different than if you are wealthy and White. However, justice seems to be the last consideration for the lawyer’s and judge’s involved. To them it is but a game, given our adversarial system of so-called justice. The guilty routinely go free and the innocent sent to jail, the wealthy White defendants get slaps on the wrists and the poor and People of Color, like this guy, have their lives taken from them effectively forever. The larger issue is that if this (when he committed the crime) young man was White and his parent’s wealthy, we probably wouldn’t have been reading about him in this article. In fact, I think we should dispense with pretense and just go back to judicial Champions; we’d likely get a similar amount of justice, on average, and it would be more entertaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat
6
And when I said they get their lives taken from them, I don’t just mean jail. After they get out, we continue to punish them, nearly guaranteeing their failure. Felony conviction? You are not eligible for assisted housing and many other public benefits. It’s almost as if we want them to return to lives of crime. Its nearly impossible to get a job with a felony, and then its the worst kind of job and hardly a livable wage. Don’t we want to help this person return to lawful society, pay taxes, and so on? Job training, mental health, physical health, and other social services, these should all be extensive and standard. This should be done simply from a financial perspective: It’s a heck of a lot cheaper to help them stay out of jail, plus it’s a good/ethical, Christian thing to do. And as someone who worked with ex-criminals extensively for years, in most cases, society failed to protect them as children. We, in effect, owe them amends. Child protection Services(CPS), intensely underfunded with staff that are catastrophically overtaxed, were often intimately involved with the households these guys grew up in and due to the meager resources afforded to CPS (and general policies they must function under), the children end up spending most of their time in the abusive households or shunted to a foster care situation which can be even worse than the one they left. All of which puts them at substantial risk for criminal activity, addiction and other mental health issues as adults.
2
If not for the felony murder rule this fellow would've oly served three years!!! For participating in a crime where someone was killed. How unjust, how horrific would that be! The felony murder rule needs to stay on the books in some form. Just because he didn't know about it doesn't fully absolve him of guilt. If you are taking part in a potentially violent crime, you can't plead innocence if violence occurs. I do think that the specific facts of a case should be able to influence sentencing, especially if there is evidence backing up the claims of a defendant. Further, the particulars of a case where one of the perpetrators is killed by a non-perpetrator (e.g. Adnan's example of a per killed by a cop) needs reconsideration. Perhaps there needs to be something more like Felony Manslaughter available.
11
One of the principles of a fair legal system is that you are punished for the crimes to which you contribute. You don't have to be the triggerman. You are equally responsible because you were part of the motivation for the murder (by participating in a robbery) or by contributing to it.
If you think that's unfair, write your state legislator. And try not to get involved in crimes that might lead to someone's death, even if that is not your intent.
17
At common law, felonious conduct was conduct that was likely to get someone killed or hurt.
Break into a house a night? Homeowner or you get killed.
Be a cutpurse in 16th century England, you or your victim might get knifed.
Help someone break into a house or be a cutpurse? You are helping them to engage in an activity you should know is dangerous to yourself, the perpetrator, or the victim.
In that light, felony murder rule makes perfect sense.
Adnan Khan willingly participated in a felony -- an inherently dangerous activity-- that got somone killed.
17
I've learned over my 40 years here that the US is a cruel, violent, vindictive and often ugly place, but I'm not sure anywhere else is much better.
3
I believe that this person probably didn't deserve such a long sentence.
But I also believe that the felony murder rule is one of the best possible rules for appropriately dealing with murders committed during the commission of a felony.
No law on the books can be written so as to appropriately deal with all circumstances that may arise during a violation. The very best remedies for apparent failures of compassion like this one are a) the discretion of a judge and b) the discretion of the parole board.
If these two thing are not enough, they should be modified so they are. But too much discretion in each case also leads to uneven application of the law. The justice system will never be perfect and it is a bad idea to toss out every law when one individual receives undue punishment.
4
I disagree that this law is arcane. For societies to function, that is, for societies to benefit the individual as well as the masses, individuals must shoulder individual responsibility for their individual actions. Whether or no said individual gives a considered action due consideration beforehand, responsibility must not be altered. The outcome of an ill considered action is just as definite and definable as from a considered action. In this case, violent death was the outcome and this law at least puts behind bars...or executes...any willing partner in setting up a situation in which murder might be the outcome. This man needs to finish his life sentence. His release absolutely sends the the wrong message into our future.
4
One of the more interesting applications of the felony murder statute I can remember involved a case I read about in law school.
As I recall, two gentlemen attempted to rob a rare gun collector. During the commission of the robbery, one of the would-be thieves was killed by the collector using one of his rare guns.
The surviving thief was convicted of the attempted robbery, and because the act of attempting the robbery was deemed to have led to the death of his cohort, he was convicted of felony murder in addition to the attempted robbery.
4
A fascinating and shocking outcome, one worthy of a Twilight Zone episode, or surprise twist crime fiction ("Postman Always Rings Twice") where justice is delivered in ironic ways that may you ponder what "justice" realy means.
In this case, an apparent miscarriage of justice involves a non-murderer being on the hook for murder because of participation in a lesser crime.
The Talmud looks at cases where a person shoots an arrow at someone otherwise about to die from some fatal accident. Is it murder? It's one of those insoluble puzzles the great legal scholar Leo Katz marvels in, as have generations of Talmudists.
In these cases the irony points to a deeper truth, driving wedges between deontological and consequentialist theories and their different attitudes toward intent and consequences.
Not a scholar in this area myself, however, my sense is that even in this gun collector story, the law's technicality making the surviving robber responsible for his accomplice's death actually closely resembles the present author's culpability, which is real. The guilt resides in participating in a crime likely to lead to another's death. That fate's fickle hand made it the accomplice and not the robbery victim has nothing to do with the surviving accomplice, whose actions (for which he is paying) could have as easily led to the collection owner's death. He created the situation in which somebody was going to die, with the whom being a coin toss.
Similar case in Florida 2 years ago.
2
The rapist is as guilty as the one who took pictures of this dispicable crime. Adnan Khan was 18, I hope he learned from his mistake and will select his friends with greater care.
4
There are many things wrong with our criminal justice system.
This law is NOT one of them.
If none of the perpetrators had carried a gun no one would have been killed.
In a crime committed by a group it is the responsibility of all members to make sure no one has a weapon.
If the criminal is carrying a weapon there is the intent of possible use.
Simple solution to this "injustice".
Do not commit crimes and do not carry weapons.
12
In civil law rules have been worked out that stop liability from attaching to consequences that are deemed too remote so it can be done in criminal matters also without any great difficulty
As a matter of history, all convicted of felonies were punished with death because there were no jails or prisons for long term sentences; jails were to hold defendants until trial. The felony murder rule is a relic of those times as the felonies punishable by death were reduced
And strictly as a matter of justice consider how sure you can be that someone who was at the scene of a crime with a perpetrator had actual knowledge that a crime was to be committed. If someone gives a ride to an acquaintance from the neighborhood who then goes inside a building where a crime is committed and then returns to the car for a ride home one may be able to impute bad judgment in choice of friends but how can you really be sure that the driver knew a crime was to be committed?
3
@sbmirow If it can be determined that he knew something illegal was about to happen, he should suffer the punishment associated with any consequence of his participation in the crime, whether he could foresee or not all the consequences. That would be a strong deterrent to crime. For example, someone should think twice about providing alcohol to a minor, or giving his keys to an inebriated person, or driving someone to a drug deal, etc.
1
The argument against felony murder is both logical and persuasive, only it ignores the reality that threat of death or bodily harm is implicit in robbery. It may not be actually intended, but it is implied in the very act. That only one of the robbers fulfills the spoken or unspoken promise does not absolve the other participants. To be sure there are good examples of the excessive use of this law - several catalogued in these comments, so the law should be modified so that it is not applied wholesale. The idea behind it, however is sound.
11
Why are CA prosecutors pushing against SB 1437? What’s the incentive? Genuine question.
During my long career in the California correctional system, I encountered many examples of inconsistencies, cruelties, injustices and frank stupidity.
I never thought this law fit any of those categories. Over the years I met four or five men serving life terms for participating in robberies which resulted in death. To a man, they used they same reasoning as Mr. Khan. They participated actively in the underlying crime, robbery, but had no knowledge going in that a death would be a consequence of the crime. I would suggest to them that maybe if they had not agreed to participate in the robbery, the homicide would not have been committed.
When I ventured opinions on other issues, prisoners consistently felt free to tell me how little I knew. In these instances, the men fell silent. They knew I had a point.
I dealt with several hundred men convicted of murder and manslaughter. With very few -- I would say very rare -- exceptions, none of these men woke up one morning and told themselves,"Today, I'm going to take someone's life, thereby ruining my own life, my family's life, and the lives of my victim's family." Most of these men stumble into the commission of their homicides. They often do not realize they've killed someone until well after the event. They did not understand the consequences of their actions until it was too late; just like the men convicted of felony murder.
10
Well gosh Adnan. Who could be more credible on this issue than you, an armed robbery convict whose actions resulted in the death of an innocent person. Powerful stuff!
12
Consider the case of Steven Woods in Texas. Marcus Rhoades confessed to killing Ronald Whitehead and Bethena Brosz. The victims’ backpacks were found in Rhoade’s car and the murder weapons found under Rhoades’ bed at his parents house.
But Rhoades was sentenced to life in prison while Steven Woods was executed.
The felony murder rule (or the law of parties as it is known in Texas) often pits one co-defendant against another. If the police and prosecutors can get one person to testify against another for a lighter sentence more likely than not the actual culprit will lie and claim his co-defendant was the actual killer.
With not one shred of physical evidence Woods was executed for Marcus Rhoade’s crime.
1
I think we should continue applying this law in the usual manner, black men get the book thrown at them and white men get a lesser sentence because they committed a lesser crime. It seems only fair that our laws should match our justice system.
1
I recommend we all stop driving (or being in cars).
Cars can kill and if we voluntarily get into a car, either as driver or passenger, and an accident causes someone else to die, well, if we hadn't gotten in the car, the tragedy would never have happened.
Lunacy? So is arguing that a robbery where killing/violence was not planned or anticipated by some of the participants, but results in killing/violence, implicates everyone involved. BTW, what do we do regarding our guilt (in America: disproportionate guilt compared to the rest of the world)
on global warming? We all participated (and still do) and bear guilt. I know, let's give reparations to the rest of the world. Great idea. We have known for quite some time, exactly what we have been doing to destroy our planet. Time for us to pay up. You play, you pay, that seems to be the consensus.
4
@AJ, a false analogy.
1
Arcane or not, someone who is an accomplice to a crime should bear responsibility for the outcome of that enterprise. Wish life was fair and justice system was not capricious. Sentences like this could be reviewed after a period of incarceration but I don't want accomplices to get a lighter sentence automatically.
14
We have a legal system whereby criminals are punished for the crimes they commit. A lot of comments are saying, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." The time is proportional to the severity of the crime. The video is highlighting that a robbery offense can be converted to a murder charge even when the person committing the robbery did not commit murder (one criminal does not have control of their criminal associates). That does not match the "crime/time" line that people are parroting. All crimes are not the same (as defined in our legal system) and all crimes do not result in the same punishment.
What does it say when the presenter points out that all the major countries that had this law have seen fit to remove it, as well as some of our own states? It must not have been an effective deterrent or of value to society.
4
Felony murder statutes cover enumerated inherently dangerous crimes. The statutes are not written or intended to frame unwitting participants in criminal activity or misdemeanors. Several commenters have cited examples where it sounds like the felony murder rule should not have been applied based on the facts, and a gross miscarriage of justice occurred as a result. While certainly a tragedy in every such instance, these are not valid arguments against the felony murder rule, which is sound legal doctrine and very reasonable social policy when applied correctly.
6
Prosecutors have run for office for the last 100 years touting their law and order credentials. Maybe the tide is turning and they will have to show their moral credentials. Just because someone can be put in jail for life doesn't mean they should be. Voters need to consider a Prosecutor's moral judgments when election time comes around.
2
It seems clear from the comments that most writers believe the felony murder rule should be retained, as also do I, generally a liberal. When a homicide occurs it is of no consolation to the victim that the perpetrators had only planned to steal his watch. The law should continue to hold participants in a conspiracy to commit a felony equally responsible for the crime and its consequences.
10
Maybe you won't commit another crime now. I don't know. Holding people up is a serious crime and I think in New York and elsewhere in this country it is seen simply as a bad deed. Violence is perpetrated by Hollywood all the time with no consequences. Just ask Quinton Tarantino, he won't take any responsibility for spreading violent movies everywhere. Everywhere.
4
It needs to be pointed out that at least in New York State a defendant has a statutory right to acquittal of felony murder if he or she proves that he or she did not solicit the victim's death.
1
For the "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" folks (and everyone else who says basically, "well if you didn't a commit a crime you wouldn't be in this position in the first place":
So you're about to cross the street, and the light turns red. You decide to walk anyway; after all, there's no cars around (say, it's Sunday morning around 8 AM).
You smile at the person crossing the street (also illegally jaywalking) coming toward you. As you get close enough to pass the person, someone dashes ahead from behind you and stabs the person coming toward you, killing them.
you and the person dashing up from behind you are accused of murder and jailed for life.
Don't like it?
Hey, can't do the time? Don't do the crime.
1
@don salmon
Jaywalking is not a felony and the stabbing did not arise out of the minor offense in any event. This
dog won't hunt (as they say in NC).
10
@don salmon
This reminds me of one Sunday morning biking west across 8th street in NYC.
I was riding toward a light. Just as I got to it, the light turned red. I rode through the light (admittedly breaking the law).
I could see, as I was approaching me, a couple, probably in their 60s or 70s, jaywalking (starting on the southwest corner of 5th Avenue and 8th St).
As I passed them at the intersection (they were barely halfway across the street - I was at least 8 to 10 feet away from them as I rode through - the man yelled at me.
I turned around, rode back and asked him - as politely as I could - what the problem was.
"You broke the law!"
I tried to remain polite and soft-spoken. As we continued to talk, he let me know he was a retired judge and had never broken the law in his life.
"I'm sorry to mention this sir, but you just broke the law, crossing against the light."
"It's not the same thing!" he shouted at me, and walked on, ignoring my follow-up comments.
****
I just added that story for folks who might want to say that my example above (you being put charged along with the murderer) 'is not the same thing."
1
Not how it works, Don. Not even close. Jaywalk without fear (of being convicted of murder).
4
Something similar in the UK. If you go out with a common purpose, for example to commit a robbery, you will be held accountable. In order not to be held accountable the person should not only say 'this is a bad idea, I want no part of it', he probably would have to call the police in advance of the robbery. If he were shown to have participated in the planning of the crime, failure to show up on the day would not be a defence.
It would be a defence if he was with a bunch of friends and some of them spontaneously decided to attack and rob someone, and he had no prior knowledge of this.
It is controversial here also.
4
Once you enter into a conspiracy to commit a violent crime, who among the conspirators actually commits the violent act is besides the point. If one choses to share in the rewards, then they should certainly be responsible for receiving the penaties. It's equivalent, although on a much different issue, to those people who support Trump and claim that they themselves are not racists. Yet they are the very fabric that gave permission to Trump, and that allows him to go on spewing his racial hatred. As we said in the sixties, you're either part of the probem or you're part of the solution. Or as Bob Dylan put it, in an entirely different context: "One should never be where one does not belong."
5
@Ronald Weinstein
She is one of the sharpest tools I have ever known, almost certainly sharper than you or me.
Also, you seem unaware of how federal trials proceed and of the amount evidence brought to the table from both the prosecution and the defense. Judges are expected to make decisions based on that evidence, not on instinct like we have the luxury of doing in the comments section of the NYT.
2
I believe that one should be punished for acts against the society we all share, and not for acts that one has not perpetuated....but robbery, especially armed robbery is an act that must allow for violent confrontation, planned or not. In doing so as a group, one must assume responsibility for the actions of all in the group, just as financial reward is shared. 16 years for robbing a bank does not seem excessive, especially as a deterrent to those who are smart enough to consider the potential repercussions of their action BEFORE becoming involved. Sorry to be unsympathetic
6
Thoroughly despicable for the NYT editors to give a voice to a convicted felon without any input or rebuttal from the victims and/or family.
23
Unlike some posters here I think the "spirit behind the law" is depraved, a sop to the tough on crime voters who are about as nuanced in the either/or thinking as the mobs in North Carolina screaming "send here back" about a U.S. citizen.
Judges are supposed to weigh the evidence, the backgrounds, any mitigating factors or circumstances that would call for maximum sentencing.
There is little that is wrong with this country that cannot be traced back to St. Reagan, GOP politicians, and the conservative zero-sum mindset.
Mandatory sentencing "guidelines" are oxymoronic.
1
@LMT
Mandatory sentencing was implemented to give consistency to sentencing since some judges would give very light sentences and other judges would give overly harsh sentences. It also makes negotiations for plea deals easier since the defendant the prosecutor know the likely range of the sentence if the defendant goes to trial. Most cases are resolved through plea bargains.
Perhaps individual mandatory sentences can be reviewed to see if they are too low or too high, but the concept of mandatory sentencing is an improvement over the prior system. The biggest improvement for the system would be to provide for people like Mr. Khan to receive a substantial sentence under the felony murder rule and then be allowed to serve part of his sentence on probation with an ankle bracelet and working in prisons and junior and high schools teaching young people and young prisoners about the felony murder rule and attempting to convince them to change their behavior. If he is diligently doing his required work, he could even be paid. It would be cheaper for the taxpayers. For criminals that choose to pay back society solely by doing their time, they should serve long sentences for conspiring to commit a crime that resulted in an innocent person being murdered.
@Jack. Good points, all...though I have read of a consistent downside: facing high mandatory minimums, innocent people sometimes take the plea bargain; a high number of cases never go to trial at all and are handled in this manner. MMs can be quite the stick.
He willingly and knowingly committed a felony. He should stay in jail.
8
@KBM
Not just any felony. Armed robbery, a felony of violence where the use of a loaded gun to steal money substantially increases the chance of innocent people getting murdered.
Mr. Khan knew he planned on participating in a violent
criminal act. He knew that if someone tried to stop the crime or did not cooperate with the bank robbers, it was likely someone would be shot. He should be held accountable for the murder with a long sentence.
We may also recall the execution of Kelly Gissandaner in Georgia in 2015. She persuaded her boyfriend to kill her husband, which he did. He was sentenced to 25 years to life with a possibility of parole. She got executed. Who did what in this crime?
Mr. Khan committed a robbery. For that only should he have been sentenced.
3
You might not have pulled the knife, but if you were there, you might have prevented the victim's escape. Or, the victim's response to the attack might have been changed by seeing 2 assailants rather than one. So, your presence very well could have contributed to the murder. It is hard to say, even for a liberal person and prison-reform advocate like me, that you should not be held accountable for that contribution.
11
Also likely not popular but the bottom line to me is about making better decisions.
I don’t think this is that bad nor arcane a law.
If you willingly and with malice aforethought help to create the illegal and dangerous circumstances in which someone is killed in the commission of a crime … whether you do the actual killing or not … then you are also VERY responsible for what goes amiss due to your illegal actions. By definition, these are things that can and do go amiss and sometimes with awful results … so if you willing enter into this action and something does indeed go amiss, then you should have known better and made a better choice. Further, if the death of someone involved or the penalties involved concern you … then you should not have willingly participated in a crime.
“Maybe” you’re not 100% responsible but you are responsible to a very healthy extent … at least 80% or higher.
This is a willful action and an illegal crime and not a traffic accident. You don’t have do it. When you opt to then you’re in it.
6
The felony murder rule is alive and well in the State of Colorado, and it is used and abused. It is especially damaging for young people...teenagers...who get in with the wrong crowd and get involved in crimes over which they have no control. It's a terrible rule and it should be struck down in every state. We now have a Democrat for Governor and for Atty General. Let's see if they are "enlightened" enough to get rid of this rule.
3
I find it simple. The death would not have occurred if the robbery did not occur. Robberies have the clear potential for violence. Especially when everyone goes in knowing that guns will be present. This was not some random occurrence. This was planned violence that lead to even more violence.
10
He was not convicted of murder, but of being part of a mob action to commit a violent felony where an innocent bystander was killed. His punishment fits the crime. It’s interesting how this piece conveniently chose to ignore talking about the criminal’s past crimes, the joint planning that went into this armed robbery, the life of the innocent murder victim, and the likely number of crimes avoided by incarcerating this offender.
23
@RPR, I thought it was interesting that he seemed to care not one little bit about the murder victim.
7
I do not think that the felony murder rule is an "arcane doctrine" - but it is clear that it is not well thought-out. A participant in an armed robbery in a bank, where there are armed guards, should have different expectations than a participant in an unarmed burglary of an unguarded warehouse. But a death might occur in either situation: an exchange of gunfire in the bank resulting in the death of a guard, or an accidental fall in the warehouse resulting in the death of one of the burglars. It seems that both deaths might result in a prosecution for felony murder - which seems justified in the bank case but not in the warehouse case.
How about a similar law imputing guilt to accountants, lawyers, bankers, and other "professionals" who enable white-collar crime?
11
@Garak
Those laws exist for conspiracy to commit crimes. Usually they are white-collar financial crimes and if you are part of a conspiracy of a group that commits the crime you are criminally liable. Lawyers, accountants, bankers, stockbrokers and others have been sentenced to prison.
You can find examples in a one minute search on the internet. Enron was one famous example and the CEO and several other corporate offices received lengthy sentences.
Matt:
Often pretty close, sometimes the same, and sometimes worse. White collar crimes can trigger slow agonizing deaths over many years. They may drive victims to drug addiction and suicide.
Violent crime kills its victims like the fireball of an atomic blast. White collar hits its victims like the radioactive fallout. It can destroy quickly, or insidiously penetrate and take over a life slowly ravaging it over many decades until the victim succumbs.
Many white collar crimes can spread their "fallout" across large populations, or infect only a few. They are thus more destructive than "conventional" violence, at least potentially and commonly.
1
But for a conspiracy among two or more persons to commit a felony, it is possible that no victim of that intended felony would be killed because the felony would not have occurred.
When persons conspire to do wrong, all wrong that flows from that conspiracy should be applicable to all conspirators.
Under common law, when two or more persons form a business partnership to engage lawfully in commerce, and one, in the course of doing partnership business, negligently injures a third-party, all of the partners are liable to the victim. A criminal conspiracy is a type of common law partnership except that its object is to engage in unlawful conduct. Surely such a conspirator should not have lesser liability than a business partner.
If a person wants to avoid the felony murder rule, don’t engage in any criminal conspiracies. That’s not asking a lot of someone.
5
If a person conspires to commit robbery and uses a weapon to do so and that weapon is used to commit murder, it is not unreasonable to charge a participant with felony murder. He certainly knew that a weapon would be used and that it might be used to harm someone. At the same time, not everyone has the same degree of culpability. Perhaps it is right that Mr. Khan got a shorter sentence. Not knowing the details of the case, it is impossible to say.
1
I remember a conversation I had with a group of friends which included a federal judge. The judge discussed her frustration with the rigid federal sentencing laws which often prevented her from taking the particulars of each case into account in sentencing decisions. She said that sometimes defendants were not the sharpest tools in the shed (my words) and that accomplices, especially, could be recruited because of that trait and got themselves in way over their heads and their expectations. She pointed out the role of prosecutorial discretion, with which she was often pleased, in taking those and similar factors into account in charging decisions. In my opinion, more flexibility in the charging laws, continued prosecutorial discretion, increased flexibility in sentencing for judges, and focusing on rehabilitation not just punishment for those who are convicted of crimes all lead to less, not more crime which is a benefit to all of us.
@Joanrb That the defendants were not the sharpest tools is hardly a mitigating factor. Left back on the street, they will be yet another blunt tool ready to be used by sharper tools to commit another crime. Maybe there is a reason judges aren't allowed to use their instincts, after all they may not be all that sharp themselves.
3
@Ronald. The assault on expert opinion is duly noted; it's ever been the cri de ceour of the reactionary mind.
1
@LMT It should also be noted that the judges mentioned weren't left to their tools either. Other "expert opinions" prevailed.
Although I think there are exceptions to the rule I believe the spirit behind the felony rule are absolutely correct. Many times in a group of individuals committing a crime there is only one gunman. You're not less guilty just because you didn't pull the trigger. How about not going a long with a potential deadly situation in the first place! If by chance you had no idea then that decision should be left up to a jury.
5
This did make me think, about a rule that I didn't understand.Our justice and penal systems are disasters, needing reform. Any law should be fair; not subject to gratuitous application depending on the prosecutor or public demands for revenge.
Convicting someone of murder for loaning a vehicle to the killer or whose partner in crime is shot by the police while escaping or in the act, makes no sense.
But in cases such as armed robbery or assault, everyone who participates carries responsibility for any injuries or deaths that result. If you've chosen to commit a crime, one where a reasonable person might expect violence, and are with someone who carries a weapon, you are responsible. Unless, maybe, you jumped in to defend the victim once you "realized" your mistake.
Still, what exactly was the original law? What parts were amended? Khan uses the term "first degree" along with felony murder, but I think that "1st degree" is defined differently in different states, related to planning and also to the victim.
The summary states: "Researchers estimate as many as one in five people serving long life sentences did not actually kill anyone." That doesn't tell us much about the level of culpability of individuals in that group. Did they intimidate or restrain the victim? Were they going to benefit from the crime? Or were they present under duress? What crime WOULD Mr Khan have been prosecuted for under the amended law?
It"s a short video: it needs elaboration.
2
I've been around people who I knew were the type to do such things, and maybe did, but I managed not to be anywhere around - and years apart from them - before they "pulled" something that got them some "justice." Sometimes, life is just harsh... I knew some people were "bad news" and did all I could to get away from them. Tough break for those caught out, or, completely unawares, but the alternative seems to be to try to sort every "story" of "I didn't know!" "I had no idea!" - which everyone would, or course, use 110% of the time. It's not like ANYONE is going to say, "Yeah, I knew... Give me 50 years!" There's a lot to be said for watching the company you keep and keeping your nose clean -and jumping and running. Just as there is a lot to be said for, "damned bad luck." No perfect solution here. Not even close to perfect. Be-ware.
1
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read " I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them."
I'll believe the felony murder rule is appropriate when executives of corporations that are responsible for deaths of citizens are arrested and charged under said rule.
6
@zizzi
Well, yes.
Yes, lets put all the people behind Purdue Pharma in prison for the murders of thousands of innocent victims over decades. What are the chances of any one of them being held properly accountable by being incarcerated for the rest of their lives or even one day. Zero! Money buys you a ‘get out of jail free’ pass every time.
1
I take his point, but maybe his focus should be elsewhere. For example, he may wish to start the: "Organization for not associating with others in criminal activity that may lead to unforseen consequences" (as it so often does).
3
Sorry, but participating in an armed robbery, which includes pre-meditated use of threat to life, means you participated in murder. There are millions of Americans in jail for questionable reasons. You are not one of them.
6
The felony murder rule is not an "arcane" legal doctrine. It is best understood as a variety of conspiracy - you own the results of the conspiracy, regardless of how small or large your role. Maybe given his contempt for the Common Law Mr. Khan would prefer Sharia Law.
6
The felony murder rule is currently being used to prosecute Christopher Ransom, the robber at the heart of the Feb. 12, 2019, NYPD friendly fire incident. Ransom was robbing a T-Mobile store, when a cop who came to apprehend him opened fire. The cop accidentally shot and killed Detective Brian Simonsen. Yet Ransom is being charged with felony murder. I just don't know how that is possible. How can a cop shoot another cop and the robber get charged? The robber didn't decide to open fire.
Ransom precipitated an incident that led to a cop making a bad decision. Ransom is guilty of that incident, which was a robbery. He should be charged with robbery. If we can assign guilt based on incidents that lead to bad decisions which then lead to a killing, then the guilt for Simonsen's death can be just as well assigned to whoever designed entry procedures for the NYPD or to Simonsen for not wearing a vest or to whichever ancient Chinese tinkerer invented gunpowder.
I completely agree with your statement. Though counterfactuals are weak evidence, I find your logic unimpeachable.
I also think you missed the point of my previous statement. I suggest reading the last sentence.
I'd like to hear the victim's statement on this.
6
@jb. The victim most likely wants blood. I would. But strictly speaking the aggrieved party is The State. This is done for good reason -- to remove this as much as possible from blood vendattas. Many years ago candidate Michael Dukakis who was assailed by the G H W Bush campaign team about Willie Horton, a parolee who committed murder. The press played along, asking Dukakis how he'd feel if his wife Kitty had been the one murdered. He flubbed the answer horribly. On a person level what husband would not want to kill someone who murdered his wife? But we have a system that tries to seek justice without being a tit for that proxy for blood thirst.
1
LMT. The victim is dead. But never mind.
2
At the end of the day we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world.
Second and third place go to Russia and South Africa.
No matter how you look at this issue, mass incarceration is not the answer. Criminalization of everything is not the answer.
Khan committed a crime, and one of his accomplices committed murder. There should be some standard to handle this other than Felony Murder sentencing for people like Khan.
Others can argue that we have to be tough, but we imprison almost a hundred more per 100k people than Russia and more than twice as many as the next countries per capita, Ukraine and South Africa.
We are not going to incarcerate our way out of this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm
2
If you believe Mr. Khan got what he deserved, then may I assume you would also believe that Purdue Phara and those running it, deserve a similar sentence to Mr. Khan given they aided and abetted in the death of thousands of Americans?
Or is it that you believe Mr. Khan is just deserving of the sentence, because he is a biological person and not an artificial, make-believe construct called a corporation (a.k.a. Ventriloquist Dummy), acting on behalf of the family that owns and controls a large portion of the same-said firm now being tried in Civil court?
If everyone, including legal persons are to have equal protection under the law, as framed by the United States Constitution, then why is Mr. Khan, either not receiving his due process in Civil court or Purdue Pharma not receiving it's due process in Criminal court? Or do many of the contributors here, believe it is fine to aid and abettin killing people, then being tried in Civil court, as long as you are the Ventriloquist Dummy, acting on behalf of some rich and/or connected person (i.e. BP Petroleum).
2
@Neil I certainly support charging with multiple murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and locking up the entire Purdue Pharma board and executive management.
1
It is distressing that the Nytimes and the Press have embraced and provide a platform for violent criminals who promote leniency for criminals and ignore the damage to victims and society. Victims no longer have a voice, the Nytimes acts like the Jane Fonda of criminal justice. The key to this criminal statute is that the prosecutors CAN but are not obligated to charge people with felony murder. As this violent criminal acknowledged, he and his fellow criminals agreed to rob a person but according to his account, they weren't supposed to bring weapons. Apparently, we are supposed to provide criminals with a menu of choices for how they conduct themselves so that they can optimize their commission of a crime. In fact, he had the choice. DONT ROB PEOPLE. It's not any more complex than that. My family is 1st generation, non anglo. We came here with no resources from two war torn nations to avoid communism. We are now a large group having gone a generation with kids and now grand kids. Yet, not a single person ever has had a scrape with law enforcement regardless of our means. No one ever said, hmmm should I rob a person with a knife a gun or simply bare handed. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time
5
@Chris. The muffling of victims, like the war on Christmas, seems somewhat overstated.
1
I’m only sorry that you only served 13 years. Your victim doesn’t have that luxury. They aren’t getting paroled, they’re dead. You get absolutely no sympathy from me for not having pulled the trigger. You participated, do the time.
8
Everyone on the team gets a Superbowl ring.
9
Adnan Khan is self-serving in his pursuit of changes in the law. He wants to feel less guilty that he participated in a violent felony knowing his accomplices were armed and might use their weapons to kill someone, so he wants the state to absolve him.
By agreeing to commit an armed robbery, burglary, or rape with someone else, you are enabling your accomplice to rely on you for backup in the commission of that crime. Without the agreement, the crime might not happen at all, much less the murder. It is 100% reasonable to anticipate that an accomplice may use the weapon they carry to harm or kill someone in the commission of the crime. An accomplice is just as much at fault as the actual murderer was, and deserves to be punished as if he pulled the trigger or stabbed the victim himself. If you don't want to be involved in (and potentially convicted of) a murder, don't commit an armed felony with someone. The felony murder rule makes 100% sense.
2
I'm sorry; felony murder is not arcane. It has been around for a long time, and it is always charged where the facts support it. There is a tendency in the media to call anything it wants to "arcane." I read in another piece recently that the Emoluments cause of the Constitution is "obscure," as if it had not been in the Constitution since 1787. Media, please, give it a rest. Just because you know nothing about criminal procedure does not mean it is obscure or arcane, or "little known." Get a Hornbook or two and read them before you make judgmental statements that miss the mark.
18
How about the reality that we’re the last remaining democracy to keep this rule on the books — except for the 7 states (including California, where Mr. Khan was convicted) that have repealed it?
Also, if you watch the video you’ll discover that this rule can even be applied to those who were participating in a felony when a responding police officer killed one of them. Convicted of first-degree murder when an officer pulled the trigger?
Sorry, that makes no legal or moral sense to me.
I wonder how many deaths would have been avoided if those in government were held responsible for their lies
I wonder why we don't hold ICE or DHS or the border patrol responsible for deaths on their watch.
I wonder why the negligence of people such as the directors of FEMA, EPA, Education, etc aren't held responsible for the deaths, injuries, and misery they cause.
I wonder how many people would have responded differently if Adnan Khan were white or female.
1
What a galling thing it is actually to enforce the laws as they were written.
Oh, the humanity.
Sorry, I have little sympathy for Mr. Kahan. After all, he was involved in a robbery in which someone was murdered and shares a real level of responsibility.
We can argue the intricacies of the felony murder rule and t he penalties it assigns, but if our legislatures feel that it is too draconian a punishment, why don't they modify or eliminate the rule?
But, doing that would be sensible, and we know that is not about to happen.
The argument, however, should not be over a man getting 16 years for participating in a felony murder, but actually convicted murders gettting nothing but 8, 10 or 12-year sentences for taking another life.
Has our view of murder become so apologetic that we are willing to let real felons off with slap on the wrist?
It certainly seems that that is the direction that our liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever they are calling themselves these days to evade having anyone notice how incongruent their positions have become...society is choosing to take.
All lives matter, not just those that can't abide by the simple, direct rules of a civil society.
Time to start thinking like they do.
1
@The Owl
Is there actually such a thing as a law enforced "exactly as written?"
Indiana had a case back in 2012 in which five youths had decided to commit a burglary. They chose a home where, unknown to them, the owner was present. He shot and killed one of the fleeing youths. The other four were convicted and sentenced to decades for the murder of their dead accomplice. Yes, the murder convictions of the Elkhart Four were eventually overturned. They never should have been tried for murder in the first place.
1
@Jack Heller
Thanks for this example. It is hard to imagine the cases that might wrongly fall or be pushed into this category, leading to very unjust outcomes.
Wow, a whole lot of 'poor me' and no mention of the man he had a hand in killing. When you google him he is listed as simply 'a man'. So not only was his life take but his identity is eclipsed by the self pity of Mr. Khan. At no time in the video has he expressed remorse or sadness for what happened. Truth is he had a part in the death of a human being. I will reserve my concern and sympathy for the voiceless.
5
Harsh punishments do not deter all crime, but certainly it deters some. Who knows how many more people would be dead if it weren't for these laws? Criminal behavior calls for imprisonment so choose your friends carefully.
3
I served on a jury in a murder trial. (Should have claimed the age exemption.) Although the person did not actually shoot the gun that killed the man but clearly arranged for the murder, she was found guilty. It still bothers me but the judge kept informing the jury that in the state of South Carolina 'the hand of one is the hand of all'. I feel that if it can be proven that one does not know of the weapon, does not participate in the murder, they should not be charged with the murder.
@Tess Martin
She arranged for the murder? She is perhaps even more guilty of murder than her hit man.
2
Did he facilitate the murder by his presence and by not intervening to stop it? If he did, and had been charged only with that, would a 16-year sentence still have been excessive?
2
A crime is whatever society defines it to be. Throughout most of the US, felony homicide occurs when someone is killed during the commission of a felony. All those participating in the felony are guilty. He committed this crime. One should not feel sympathy for him.
7
"unexpectedly killed their victim" what kind of framing is this? He knew that the accomplice was armed which means he was aware that the gun could be fired resulting in bodily harm and/or death. He made the choice to accept that risk and go forward with the crime.
9
The felony murder rule isn't the only tool that prosecutors have for use against defendants. Add to it the evidence rule which allows the Government to introduce "prior bad acts" or "other acts" evidence involving the defendant. These can be even other uncharged incidents from a person's past or an incident that occurs after the current charge happened. This is a very powerful prosecutorial tool to let into trial evidence about the defendant, even without his testifying during trial and being subject to impeachment. Defense attorneys generally attack this as improper character evidence, but the evidence rule and case law provide a fairly liberal admission of such evidence. It allows a jury to know of "bad acts" (Rule 404(b) evidence) about the defendant which are separate from the charges he's facing at trial. Defense attorneys, in such cases, are really fighting several mini-trials. The jury is instructed on how to consider such evidence, but the jury now knows of other acts by the defendant.
Prior bad acts evidence is used much more frequently in trials than the felony murder rule.
If you want to see any changes to such rules, felony murder or bad acts evidence, you'd have to get the state legislature to change the laws. If you have a republican, conservative controlled state legislature, you can forget it: the legislators will do flips to appease prosecutors and disadvantage defendants. In Georgia, it is a conservative-controlled legislature. Prosecutors reign supreme.
2
The theory, I think, is that the accomplice wrongfully put people in harm's way and as a result someone died. The accomplice was not out to earn a merit badge; he/she was committing a crime--a very serious crime.
The accomplice should have been able to foresee that death was not unlikely as a consequence of his/her crime. The accomplice took that risk when he/she agreed to participate in the crime, particularly if the crime involved guns.
From a utilitarian perspective, at least, we want to encourage criminals to be careful not to kill anyone. We want them to encourage their cohorts not to kill anyone. So it's clear to me that if a death results from the commission of a felony, some enhancement--maybe not first degree murder, but some--is appropriate.
I think sentencing in the US is generally too harsh. But enhancing the punishment due to a death is appropriate.
6
As a former teacher in one of California's prisons, I can attest to the absurdity of this law, though when I first heard one of my students describe why he was serving life for a crime he did not commit, I had to check his file as I was sure he was exaggerating.
Mr. Khan makes the point that has baffled me from the beginning of my awareness of the incarceration crisis in the United Sates.
We know that keeping people in prisons unnecessarily is costly to both tax payers and society at large because people serving time without adequate tools available for rehabilitation are more likely to reoffend. And yet, our incarceration policies are largely geared toward, rather than away from, recidivism.
As with virtually all other social policy, this counter-productivity boils down to politics. Politicians want to appear tough on crime . In addition, prison workers unions, especially in California, lobby heavily for policies securing their job security, i.e., keeping the prisons as full as possible.
It is an absurdity that our prisons are often called correctional institutions , for they correct nothing. They only make things worse.
7
I was a prosecutor for 37 years, and, as Chief of a Homicide Bureau, made charging decisions regularly that sought to hold participants responsible for Felony Murder. I still think it was appropriate do do so.
I routinely factored in the degree to which a participant was involved in deciding what plea to offer. So, for example, a shoplifter stealing packages of meat, who chose to struggle and fight with the owner who caught him rather than drop the stolen items, was now technically a robber, in that he used force to retain the stolen goods. He then chose to run rather than to submit to arrest. After a chase of several blocks, the perusing owner dropped dead of a heart attack. Technically, this is a felony murder, but the underlying circumstances do not call for punishment anywhere near equal to an intentional killing. Despite the complaints of the family of the dead store owner, the thief was offered a plea, that while harsh for the crime of stealing, took into consideration the unique circumstances of this “felony murder”. I would have hated to see him reject the plea, go to trial, and face being convicted of murder.
Every crime is unique, and one flaw of the system is that not every participant is caught, nor is there always sufficient evidence to charge and punish each participant in a manner proportional to his or her role. Sometimes, the non-killer is the only one against whom there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.
5
This rule is not "arcane". If you're going to get into the business of crime, you should probably become familiar with the rules.
Mr. Khan was complicit in this crime, and got what he deserved.
18
I think the felony murder rule is appropriate for armed robbery, because the crime carries a reasonable expectation that somebody could get killed in the committing of this type of crime. What if the crime were something like drug smuggling, where there is not necessarily such an expectation? Suppose you and an accomplice agreed to smuggle some narcotic across state lines, but suddenly find yourselves pursued by police, unbeknownst to you the accomplice happened to be carrying a gun, he pulls it out, then he shoots a police.
6
Felony murder is another example of the cruel and unjust penal system in the United States. In America, no amount of punishment for any crime is ever enough, and the barbarities of American prison life are considered inadequate retribution even for small crimes.
2
It’s hard to know where exactly the equities lie in this. At what point if any should a perpetrator be liable—only if a reasonable person should have expected that the intended crime is likely to cause significant physical harm to someone? More? Less? It seems a slippery slope either way.
The example in the video that seems most difficult, without knowing more about it, is the one of an accomplice being held liable for murder when the police killed his fellow perpetrator. I don’t follow the logic. What if the death had been the result of his, or for that matter a bystander’s, tripping and falling down the stairs?
1
Also, if a ponzi schemer robbed people of their lifesavings and their resulting despair resulted in one or more suicides, should the schemer be convicted as a murder? Should an accomplice of the schemer?
1
Criminal and make justice is a mess.Need major reforms. It is time to do to make
it fair and equitable.
1
I am not buying his argument. Mr Khan does bear responsibility for murder during an armed robbery he participated in. He was not playing hopscotch during perpetuation of the violent crime that ended up with someone dead. This is the risk he took, and he got what he deserved.
13
A sense of entitlement has now drifted to criminals who plan a violent act and then, shock! discover that someone was hurt.
Felony murder makes sense in the abstract -- you're part of a criminal enterprise and you don't get to squirm out of it if one of your cohorts enhances the crime -- and in the practical everyday sense: it is a great tool by which prosecutors can get criminals to testify against their nefarious colleagues.
What's next? Paul Manafort complaining about the charge of conspiracy against the US? Whether or not a crime was committed, conspiracy "defines separate and additional offenses if two or more people enter into an illegal agreement with the intent to engage in criminal conduct, and commit an overt act in furtherance of that agreement."
Imagine that. Even if the crime is never committed, you can be convicted of conspiracy.
Sounds like an issue Adnan Khan couldn't understand, and therefore would call unfair.
6
I do not agree. Mr. Khan did agree to participate in a felony level crime. Had he not participated in that action, he would have no consequences to face. Had he not participated perhaps that crime, in those circumstances, does not occur, and an innocent murder victim is instead alive today, with his or her family. This “arcane” rule is not unfair, and is in fact, a fair warning: if you lack the moral ethics to refrain from committing crimes in concert with others, against fellow citizens, you will all go down the same road together, whatever happens.
5
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If you cannot do the time, do not do the crime.
6
Very limited sympathy for this individual. He took part in a robbery in which, at the very least, he was willing to work alongside accomplices who were willing to kill an innocent person to steal their property.
I'll save my sympathy for the true victim in this case.
7
There you are, taking part in a snatch and grab, when your partner pulls out a knife and murders the person you're robbing.
All you were doing was robbing someone. It was your partner who also took their life. Why should you suffer for their crime?
I think this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. But I don't think we should do away entirely with the law that says if you took part in an action that led to someone's murder, you may also be responsible.
6
A reasonable person knows a weapon is used to intimidate AND to kill during a crime...incompetence nor ignorance of the law by all the perpetrators is no defense.
3
The Law in the United States of America nowadays is apply harshly to minorities. In this country we have different sets of law. One for the rich and famous, one for the powerful and well connected, and other for regular white folk, and another for minorities. The last one is the harsh one, from a simply traffic ticket, where poor people lack money to pay fees and the ticket itself end up in jail. For minorities in the USA is “guilty until proven innocent” in this country, the public defender is a court employee, how’s possibly they could defend a poor person? If they are working for the a system that is attempting to convict? Until the law is entirely blind and is apply correctly, we won’t have justice for minorities in this country.
2
I am not sure that your article fully addressed the wide-ranging possibilities of the felony-murder rule. At one extreme we may find two armed robbers engaged in a shootout where an innocent person is killed. At the other extreme are two unarmed felons fleeing the police when one of them is killed by the police. Another example is where one of the accomplices is not even present at the scene of the crime. In each of those situations, courts have applied the felony-murder rule to the accomplice notwithstanding the significant differences in culpability between the first example and the latter two examples.
To the victim's families, the relative guilt of the defendants is irrelevant, something with which we can all sympathize with. However, at least three states have abolished the rule, while other states have considered it in light of the enormous differences that can exist in the relative culpabilities of the defendants. This can be especially true when a mature adult brings a naïve teenager to a crime where there may be no expectation of a death. Although the difference in culpability is often, but not always, recognized in sentencing, perhaps it is time to recognize a difference in culpability in the criminal codes.
5
Say you break into my house. I am upstairs and hear the door kicked in. I flee by jumping out the window reasoning that a 15 foot drop into the garden below is better than facing you. I land but slip on the ivy, fall and fatally strike my head against a rock. Who is at fault for my death? I'd say you are. Now I don't believe you should be charged with murder and face a life sentence, but breaking into peoples houses have unforeseen consequences that you may face an additional penalty for.
7
@Peter S. If it can be shown his intention was to murder you, he should be charged with murder. Otherwise, voluntary manslaughter would be appropriate.
In the case of Adnan; how do we know that what he said is completely true? Because He could have omitted information that was available to the prosecution when he was sentenced. Just because he looks clean-shaven and speaks softly it does necessarily mean that he is telling us all the truth. Yes, I do believe the law in regards to "felony murder" is archaic and needs to be revised. At the same time, I have to believe that police/prosecution work was exhaustive and there may have been incriminating factors that we do not know anything about.
1
He took part in a robbery where his side had firearms and knew they might be used to shoot and possibly kill people.
If someone bucks of course they will be shot and or murdered.
I reserve my sympathy for the victims family.
He should be on parole for life.
5
And when our country invades and occupies a much smaller country, such as Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, and innocent people are killed and maimed as a result, we are all responsible for that violence and killing.
6
These accomplices want us to ignore that they were participants in an illegal act that experience has shown often deteriorates into violent situations and those violent situations can result in death. Many a home invasion has started off as a robbery and then became a rape or a kidnapping and murder.
4
Thanks for the subitle "It's thanks fo an arcane legal doctrine that's been ditched everywhere--except the United States.". The felony murder rule is just one more terrible example of American " exceptionalism," this one in the criminal American "justice" system.
1
This doesn't seem to be a popular opinion, but I think you should only get charged with murder if you kill someone, or conspire with others to kill someone. Not "well they were engaging in a felony anyway" or "what did they think would happen?" but actually commit the crime or knowingly abet it. There are plenty of lesser charges that will successfully incarcerate those engaging in the related felony without charging them for something they didn't plan or do.
260
@Jen Three guys with guns walk into a liquor store, rob the store and one of them fires a single shot and kills the owner. All three are seen walking in to the store, a gun shot is heard, all three are seen running out. "A" says "B" shot the owner. "B" says "C" shot the owner. "C" says "A" shot the owner. There is more than sufficient evidence that one of the three fired the shot but there is no evidence as to which one pulled the trigger. Jury has to acquit all three of murder since there is a reasonable doubt as to each individual defendant. They each get convicted of armed robbery and spend 5 years in prison and no one is ever convicted of the murder. You agree with that result?
29
@PF59 The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If they cannot prove who did it, then they cannot convict. It is a simple principle. In your scenario, if are other people, maybe a customer, in the store with guns, are they also going to be charged? Because many people who walk around with guns have remarkably light triggers.
I wouldn’t like the result but without any other piece of information, it is the just result. Nobody should go to jail for a crime they didn’t commit. If carrying a gun shows intent, start arresting those women who bring rifles to the supermarket.
23
@PF59 This article did NOT suggest that all none of these men should be charged/ imprisoned, only that this needs to be clarified. If there is confusion, I believe the DA's office can figure this out.
4
The rule is not arcane; it makes perfect sense. If people participate in illegal activities they deserve punishment if someone is killed. They know it could happen. People who drive drunk don't mean to kill either but after far too many years of getting away with murder, they are now held responsible.
This is the same whining excuse people are making for Judith Clark who participated in the Brinks robbery with 4 people murdered. Some, including this newspaper, pointed out that she didn't pull the trigger. So what? She was there and knew there would be shooting. That is participation enough, yet she was paroled because she said she was sorry. That doesn't bring the dead back to life. People should have to serve their entire sentences without any time off for good behavior or any other bleeding heart reason. The victims' families suffer forever, so should the criminals. It sounds cliche, but don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
14
“Arcane” is a dumb word to use here and the idea that he didn’t commit murder is specious. The logic of the law is clear, and nobody can argue that this law is not widely known and publicized. It’s even accurately represented in cop dramas on TV.
If you don’t want to share responsibility, don’t commit a robbery with other people. Robberies are widely known to have the potential for becoming even more violent than they already are.
I’m sure there are some instances where people are unwittingly in a getaway car, and they should not be charged; but on the whole the law seems sane and with a reasonable expectation of a deterrent effect.
Caveat: I’m not one of those prudes who doesn’t enjoy the idea of a nice, non-violent, well-planned late night jewelry heist or bank vault breach. But you may not harm a guard.
6
There's a typo in this article. In the second paragraph you call the felony murder rule "an arcane piece of legal doctrine," when the correct term is "a reasonable legal doctrine broadly supported by citizens across the political spectrum."
13
We never did hear about the conversation between the codefendents about what will happen if the victim resists?
He never stated that this was his first armed robbery, that he was new to all of this.
He never stated that in any other previous criminal acts, no one was hurt.
He never stated that he had no priors.
Like almost all jailhouse lawyers he is the real victim.
5
If I intended to rob a bank and my accomplice is carrying a gun, then I'm as guilty as he is of committing armed robbery.
By this man's token, all you need to do is find some fool willing to carry your gun for you, and shoot someone dead for you, and you're off scot-free.
Doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. If you're with people who murder, you're just as responsible.
I do have a great idea, though: don't commit the crime in the first place.
7
It would be easy to assume that everyone in the group of individuals who sets out to commit say, a minor offense is guilty except when ONE of those individuals just happens to be a hothead or drunk, or a loose cannot and finds the need to "shoot someone". That's why choosing your friends wisely is so important...even when your low-level criminals because all it takes is one idiot to turn a minor offense into a murder. they should all be taken on a case-by-case basis because every situation IS different. People who point fingers and want to hang everyone would change their minds if it were one of their children and their children's volatile friends.
Armed robbery is not a minor offense.
2
Sorry, I have no sympathy for this criminal. He made a choice and he knew or should have known that if or when someone dies in an armed robbery he would receive the same punishment. Instead of robbing someone for a profession try working for a living. It's not all about you.
7
You are only as good as the worst person you socialize/hang out with. The company you keep matters: It could land you in jail for a long time. Chose wisely.
2
Don't commit robbery. If you do, you will harm other people, and you will be caught and sent to prison.
6
Sounds like he got off easy.
6
So, according Mr. Khan, if a lynching mob kills one or several persons, only the mob participants that delivered the killing blow should be punished. The rest of the mob should go free. Did I get that right?
8
California did NOT do away with its felony murder rule. It was amended to require that a defendant who was not the actual killer must have been "a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life." [P.C. sec. 189(e)(3)] Persons such as Mr. Khan who were convicted under the prior "natural and probable consequences" provision could petition to be resentenced and released. Although a D.A. could object, they would need to establish guilt under the new provisions beyond a reasonable doubt. [P.C. sec. 1170.95]
4
If you commit a violent felony with other people and someone dies as a result, you should be punished, whether you “pulled the trigger” or not.
You participated in a conspiracy to commit a crime that resulted in death. You deserve punishment.
There are piles of injustice and irrationality in the American criminal prosecution system, including rampant sexism and racism.
This is not one of those injustices. Sorry.
10
All I see is an unrepentant criminal participant minus remorse.
12
Hard to feel too sorry for a participant in a dangerous felony, where you know violence could take place.
7
And, by the way, the New York felony murder law does not allow for conviction if the person killed was a participant in the crime and it only applies to certain, serious felonies. And a defendant can also claim that they were not armed and didn't know that other participants were armed. So NY is not like other states. Seems to me you should have mentioned that in the text accompanying the video.
4
It's time for this law to be abolished. No one knows about it except those who are trapped in it. It is the most unjust law on the books.
My friend, in 1993, was 18 years old, still in high school, good kid. No record, not even a traffic violation. His teachers and peers liked him. He drove some older guys to a house to get marijuana. He waited outside. Someone was killed. They ran out and told him to drive. He did. He was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
The courts show no mercy. Now, after 26 years of perfect prison behavior, they still won't let him out. The Parole Board just gave him a release date of 2073, when he will be 88 years old.
What a waste. How stupid can we be.
5
@bq- Good kid? He drove some older guys to a house to get marijuana. Wasn't that a felony in our state till very recently? Drug buys can go wrong very easily. Good kids choose their older guy friends more carefully.
3
@S.L. Did you ever make any wrong decisions when you were 18 years old? Should you spend your life in prison for an error of judgement that you made at 18 years old?
Kahn and his friends agreed to rob and "rough up" a pot dealer. During the robbery, one of the men became enraged, pulled out a knife and killed the victim. Perhaps Kahn should not have received a life sentence for first degree murder. But under the new law, he would have received only a three-year sentence for armed robbery. That seems insufficient. He planned and participated in what was intended to be a violent robbery. He should be held responsible for the outcome and pay some kind of additional consequence for the victim's death.
9
For anyone interested in the details of Adnan Khan's case:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20090325010
1
@Kathy bee - The pertinent parts are that the robbers admitted thy intended to "rough up" the victim, and that Khan did in fact hit the victim over the head before the partner stabbed him to death.
In Khan's telling, he made it sound like he was just standing there passively when all of a sudden the partner took out a knife. Not quite.
1
If you are committing a crime and you know that your accomplice is armed, then you are aware that someone could be killed during the crime, even if you don't kill them yourself. If you go through with the crime anyway, you are as responsible for a death as if you pulled the trigger and killed the person yourself. That is the rationale for the felony murder rule. Works for me. If you don't want to go to prison, don't commit the crime.
6
@Brooklyn teacher I would argue that if you know you participate in a crime, be ready to be held accountable for any of the crime's outcomes.
2
If a person participates in a violent felony that any reasonable person could easily escalate or end in the use of deadly force, that person chose to be part what happens. A robbery necessarily involves the use of force to get another person's belongings. Is it any great surprise that victims sometimes (gasp) resist being attacked? Does it take a leap of imagination that things might "go wrong", resulting in someone dying? Would the guy who pulled the trigger even have contemplated the robbery without the support of compatriots? Likely not. I have no doubt that Mr. Kahn would have shared in the fruits of the robbery. Why shouldn't he bear the natural consequences of that violent behavior.
6
There are both deterrent and practical reasons for the felony murder rule. The practical reason is without the felony murder rule teams of criminals working together may be acquitted. Three guys with guns walk into a liquor store, rob the store and one of them fires a single shot and kills the owner. All three are seen walking in to the store, a gun shot is heard, all three are seen running out. "A" says "B" shot the owner. "B" says "C" shot the owner. "C" says "A" shot the owner. There is more than sufficient evidence that one of the three fired the shot but there is no evidence as to which one pulled the trigger. Jury has to acquit all three of murder since there is a reasonable doubt as to each individual defendant.
3
Hey Mr. Khan.....not a word about justice for the victim? And you work for the Justice project. What's up with that?
11
You served 16 years for murder because you committed a crime during which someone was killed, and the law chooses to punish criminals who participate in conduct that results in death. As you well know.
11
Here's another headline from today's NYT:
"Louisiana Police Officer on Facebook Says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘Needs a Round’"
According to the felony murder rule, should individuals who try to instigate gun violence — in this frightening example a long-term police officer who is still on the force — be charged if the nuts who follow them comply?
If I had to choose between living next door to the officer in question or Adnan Khan, or running into either of them in a dark alley, I'd prefer Mr. Khan.
There is something terribly wrong in America.
8
No. You totally misunderstand the felony murder rule.
5
@Steven Guardiano
Threatening a member of congress is a felony. At least it used to be, back in the days of civilized presidents.
2
I'm wondering why several commenters refer to Khan's crime as involving a gun or "pulling the trigger." He states that the person he was with used a knife, not a gun.
5
The felony murder law is unjust and possibly a violation of the Geneva convention (collective punishment). It is absolutely inhumane and must be abolished.
Reading through the comments, I am surprised by the support for the law. It seems to be a classic case of "tough on crime" gone wrong. Yes, it seems like a great idea and a way to make violent criminals pay but in practice, it is poorly applied.
I would make two points; that justice could be better served by charging criminals appropriately and perhaps amending laws to this effect in the case of felony murder (as California has done)
and that this law is part of a greater problem we have in America with over incarceration and the prison industrial complex.
To the first point, California has amended the felony murder law so that an accomplice may only be charged with murder if that acted with intent to aide or abet in the act of a murder. This seems entirely reasonable to me. As it is, a potential robber could ask a friend for a ride to work. Unbeknownst to the friend giving the ride, the criminal could actually intend to rob the business, accidentally kill someone and that friend could be charged with murder.
On my second point, this is a classic example of giving prosecutors a tool to lock up criminals and the prosecutors misusing that tool to lock up people for much longer than would be just.
4
Jesse, no law leads to the perfect application of justice, but you have given no reason this law is any more inhumane than other laws.
A good lady friend of mine was robbed at gun point in the parking lot of a Walmart several years ago. The robber jumped out of a car (in which several accomplices were sitting) and did the deed. Luckily she complied with their requests and nothing went fatally wrong. They took her purse and when they tried to use her credit card for the THIRD time in two hours the police were able to apprehend them.
Think of the people in that car watching their friend commit an armed robbery against my friend. They were clearly co-conspirators in the matter and their mere presence increased the terror level for my friend (who for a few seconds thought she might be kidnapped). They may as well have been pointing a gun at her too. If something had gone wrong and the guy killed my friend how would I feel about the trigger man and the people in the car? I'd say lump them all together, lock them up, and throw away the key.
286
I can understand your point of view, but what you are really advocating is revenge, not justice. The killer is the person who commits the murder, and unless you can prove that the accomplices intended for the murder to happen, which would be conspiracy to murder, they should not be charged or convicted for that crime, in a just society.
112
@Ryan The two cases are different, because the people in the car agreed to to use a weapon in the robbery, knowingly creating a risk of death.
In Khan's case, there was an agreement not to bring weapons to a robbery , and his partner broke his promise.
20
@Ryan “May as well have been pointing a gun” is not the same thing as pointing a gun at a person.
52
The question is one of culpability. Armed robbery is a reckless action that has a least the potential of endangering the lives of innocent victims (lethal consequences). While Mr. Khan himself shouldn't be charged with the same murder as the person who actually pulled the trigger, it should certainly be an aggravating circumstance in the sentencing for the crimes he did commit. The problem with these overly punitive charging/sentencing rules beyond the basic unfairness of charging someone with something they did not themselves do, is the fact the law is not applied equally. Therefore it has the effect of harming certain offenders in the justice system more than others based on race, or position in society.
3
Why is the US so violent? A part of me thinks that the answer lies in a lot of the responses here. The constant demand for vengeance which serves little purpose. The US has the harshest laws the greatest number of its citizens in jail and the death penalty yet is more violent than almost any other civilised country with a murder rate multiples higher than most. This man did not intend to kill anyone he is not guilty of murder.
359
@David It could also be that Americans are in love with freedom but not so much with responsibility for their actions. It could also be easier access to weapons that can inflict mass injuries. The law usually holds that you intend the natural and probable consequences of your actions. If you are party to a conspiracy or agreement to perpetrate a robbery, and one of your cohort kills someone, you are responsible, even without the felony murder rule. It is called aiding, inducing, or causing an offense. This is not vengeance, it is an allocation of responsibility created by the legislature.
13
@David
I agree and would only add that this was a crime involving marijuana which I assume was illegal 16 years ago, even in California. They robbed a marijuana dealer, ie someone engaged in an illegal activity himself.
No, the dealer shouldn't have died because of it, however, "the war on marijuana" has already claimed too many victims.
2
@LS Are you arguing that committing a crime against a criminal that was not targeting you is not a crime, but a gift to society?
1
There was a high profile case here in Colorado in which a young woman was convicted under a felony murder theory for murder of a police officer, even though at the time her "accomplice" shot the officer, she was handcuffed in the back seat of a police car. She originally was sentenced to life without parole. Although she had a lot of support from high profile people, it was not the unfairness of the felony murder charge that ultimately resulted in her conviction being reversed. It was because the jury had been mis-instructed on the underlying crime -- breaking into an ex-boyfriend's apartment to retrieve her own belongings -- which would have been trespass, a misdemeanor, rather than felony burglary. But the case highlighted how extreme the felony murder rule can be. https://www.aspentimes.com/news/auman-conviction-tossed/
187
@Elsie H
Perhaps this was also the result of prosecutorial mis-conduct? He/she/the certainly should have known the underlying crime was not a felony burglary .
@Elsie H
This is an excellent example of how capricious and misguided the felony murder law is used. But I have to add that whenever a law enforcement officer is killed, prosecutors charge anyone remotely involved to satisfy society’s lust for revenge and also to make a name for themselves. Absent such a law the prosecution would have run amuck anyway. But this also remains a good example of why such a law needs to be repealed in all states.
3
If you commit an inherently dangerous felony - like an armed robbery - there is a high risk that someone may be killed by you or one of your coconspirators. That is the reason behind the felony murder rule. It is not “arcane”. It makes perfect sense.
If you join a criminal conspiracy and act overtly to further it, until the conspiracy comes to an end or you disavow it you are legally responsible for every crime committed by your coconspirators. That is not an arcane rule either.
The better practice is to not commit inherently dangerous felonies and to refrain from joining criminal conspiracies.
If you do, and someone dies, you have mo one to blame for your murder charges but yourself.
3
If one engages in a criminal conspiracy, one does not get to control what the other members of the conspiracy do, but everyone in the conspiracy have created a circumstance where any other member is far more likely to act violently than they would be absent the crime.
If a thief brought a pit bull to a robbery and it mauled someone who resists, will their defense lawyer blame the dog? Is someone who knowingly launders money for a drug cartel free of moral responsibility for the violence the cartel commits? The answer in both cases is "of course not".
There is a reason this is or was the law in every state, and it is not because no one thought of the author's circumstance when the laws were created. If a criminal wants to only be charged for their own actions, they should commit crimes alone and not invite someone to a situation where it is impossible to know how the other person will react under pressure - until it is too late.
This argument is ridiculous.
3
The USA have the highest violent crime rate per capita in the world. About 8 times more than the average in Europe.
The USA have also the highest incarceration rate in the world by 8 times more than European average.
And still the last industrialized nation not to have abolished the death penalty, known as a crime producer .
3
I saw Anthony Ray Hinton speak during one of his tours, where he travels the country to educate audiences about innocent people convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Mr. Hinton spent 28 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit. He was framed by an Alabama police force. Editorial real estate in the NY Times is limited and precious. I wish this space was used to educate us about how many innocent people have been sent to prison, and what is being done to remedy this. I have no interest in reading a 'poor me' story from a man who willingly committed an armed robbery. Yes, I can skip over it, but this editorial real estate could have been used to further society, rather than simply for clickbait. Newspapers have an obligation to shed light on inequity, and not use their precious editorial space to give a platform to self-confessed felons who believe they got a raw deal.
4
@dga Consider me guilty for reading this but I was not aware of the law and found it very interesting as well as the various positions held by others here in the comment section. We all have things to learn and I do not regret the use of the editorial real estate on this topic.
An important distinction that most people appear to have missed -- California did not abolish felony murder, it amended it. Now, to be convicted for felony murder the participant must have the intent to kill or be a "major participant" acting with "reckless indifference to human life."
Eliminating felony-murder completely is a tough question, as it can be supported under theories of retribution and deterrence, but these kinds of common-sense modification -- giving judges and juries greater flexibility in assigning culpability and crafting a fair sentence should be supported.
219
@WDC
Thank you - at last a comment that reflects the sensibilities I have. One size fits all is too arbitrary. I have seen enough Investigation Discovery murder documentaries to witness the great disparity of culpability of accomplices - some naive dupes - some cunning masterminds. In order to judge you need to be able to exercise judgment. Rigid statutes obviate that exercise and substitute an obtuse prejudgment in its stead.
13
In the great western novel Lonesome Dove, Gus McCray said it best - "You know the rules Jake. You ride with outlaws you hang with outlaws"
166
@Lawrence Yes! And your mom no doubt said that you are known by the company you keep.
7
@Lawrence Because a 35 year-old work of fiction romanticizing life in the 1870s has tremendous bearing on the real-life nuances of the American legal system in 2019.
23
@Lawrence He also said 'whackin a surly bartender ain't much of a crime'. Bet the bartender doesn't feel that way.
5
16 years seems appropriate for his involvement in the death of an innocent robbery victim.
6
You are serving 16 years for being a willing accomplice to murder.
Murder is without a doubt the most heinous of crimes. It is reasonable that, if a group is commiting a crime, and during the unfolding of that criminal act one of the group commits a murder, it is the other members moral duty to desist from their criminal act in order to prevent the murderer from evading justice.
There may not be honor among thieves, but each is cognizant that one crime can spiral into many.
5
I don't believe in unjust punishment or incarceration.
But the purpose of the Felony Murder Rule is to deter people from committing ANY crime by saying, in essence, "If you commit a crime which is defined as a felony, you're risking being sentenced for ANY crime resulting from same. So ... think about that before you choose or agree to in any way participate, aid or abet that criminal enterprise."
Yes, there are anecdotal examples of overreach or lack of fairness (e.g., the couple of examples to which he cites), and those should be addressed individually.
But bottom line is: if you spit in someone's face, you can't say that their only acceptable response is to spit in yours.
If they choose, in response, to punch you or take a baseball bat to your windshield or to hit you with a chair ... well, that might happen.
In other words, if you don't want to risk that sort of response, then don't spit in their face.
If you don't want to risk being charged under the felony murder rule, don't commit or get involved in any way with the commission of a felony.
The rule doesn't need to be changed. The rule needs to be PUBLICIZED.
Big ads on Jerry Springer or other popular TV shows or whatever.
Let everyone know how much they risk by ANY involvement in a crime and maybe they won't get involved.
2
Adman Khan helped facilitate the death of an innoncent victim. Now he sees himself as an innocent victim of the same circumstances. It seems his 16 years in prison taught him nothing about responsibility or compassion.
16
This reminds me of a crime that happened about a decade ago in Knoxville, tn. Two men broke into a house and in the process of their burglary a kid hit one of them over the head with a space heater and the man died. Because his accomplice died during the commission of the felony he was charged with felony murder.
49
@Travis Because it is reasonable to anticipate that during a burglary, someone might be killed, whether by the burglar or the homeowner.
13
@Travis, this is not an unusual configuration.
4
@Travis That is so absurd! No wonder we send everyone to prison.
7
By and large I support this law as is. The possible exception being a case I read about a few years back where after robbing a bank, the robbers were trying to get away flea via a vehicle and end up crashing their car after their tires were spiked by the cops. One of the robbers died in the crash, one of them tried to flea on foot while firing a gun at the police and was killed by the cops. The surviving robber (who was not the driver) was then charged and convicted of felony murder for the death of both of partners in crime. To me that seemed a stretch.
62
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title
It's because it is reasonable to anticipate that, in the commission of a crime and attempt to flee, someone could be killed. If not for the commission of the felony, the people who were killed in the resulting accident would still be alive. The felony itself is what created the risk of death. The felony murder rule is intended to be a deterrent to committing felonies that are likely to result in heat of the moment deadly circumstances.
9
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title. If you bathe your dog, the fleas will flee. Attempting to get away from a a situation = flee.
8
So why did they have a gun with them?
8
If me and my friend are standing on an overpass and she says, hand me that brick, I'm going to throw it at a car and I do. Should I get off because I didn't throw the brick?
7
Robbery is a crime of force and violence. There is always the possibility of the victim being seriously hurt or killed. I have no sympathy for Mr. Khan.
18
Judging by the comments, it's amazing how many people didn't actually watch the whole video.
6
I am strongly against our unjust and racist criminal legal system here in the US. But frankly, I’m sick and tired of violent criminals getting portrayed as heroes!
True, he should not be in prison for decades for a murder he didn’t commit, but he’s still morally culpable for the victim’s death. I hope he knows that.
Somehow, despite lots to be furious about, I don’t go around robbing people by gun or knife point, and I don’t leave my house with a crow bar planning to beat people with it (see eg, the Central Park jogger case). People who plan and commit interpersonal violence should not be lauded as heroes or walking red carpets — the thought of them on a pedestal makes my stomach churn.
Let’s correct the system and put these people in their rightful place — in jail, just for shorter times.
16
Life can be tough.
2
Felony murder isn't an "arcane legal rule," it's about being responsible for your actions--a concept that career criminals typically have a tough time wrapping their heads around
24
@Ben L. If every other country in the world has dropped this rule ... don't you think it might be unfair?
@Joan
The thinking of Ben L. typifies the reason that the U.S. has not addressed the felony murder rule as other countries did.
We are indeed exceptional. We are collectively tougher-minded than other modern democracies by a dimension. Hypocrisy is the fabric of our history.
We show collectively little remorse for our decimation of Native Americans most of whom live in poverty. We act righteously indignant at the very IDEA of reparations for the hundreds of years of slavery that we inflicted and profited from.
We abide, indulge, fund, and defend an abusive justice and prison system that guarantees ravaged lives for all who fall into it.
We beat our breasts with teary-eyed patriotism and shrug off responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands (and more) innocent people in our cynical Vietnam and Iraq adventures. The affiliated cronyism and pork barreling enriched and empowered profiteers beyond comprehension.
We already treat innocent people like criminals, putting their children in cages, so there is little compassion from our shallow reservoir left over for convicted criminals.
With a record like this, why oh why would we care for a few powerless people who went to prison over the felony murder rule?
2
@Trista sweet pontificating, but this is not unique to the US, it's just called "joint enterprise" in the glorious, just and crime-free utopia of "other countries"
1
I support the felony murder rule. How can we ever believe these people when they say they didn't know? They knew someone would be killed. I can just see it now- older criminals talking kids into pulling the trigger and then walking away without any punishment because 'I didn't pull the trigger.' What a joke.
17
Violence is at the very core of a robbery, which is defined as the taking of property from someone through force or fear. Usually the weapon of choice in this act is a gun, or sometimes robbers just physically overpower their victims. Many times victims are left maimed or shot and don't die. In any case these crimes are serious, violent and have very unpredictable outcomes. Suspects in these cases usually have a plan and work as a team and are making a conscious choice, and many are involved is a series of robberies which escalate in violence over time. That someone would be killed in a violent act like this should not be a surprise to anyone, especially a team of violent armed robbers. When a death does occur everyone should be held accountable.
17
Could we apply this to police killings of suspects?
Suppose several police are surrounding a suspect. One of them pulls his gun and kills the suspect.
Suppose the killing was unjustified, because the suspect didn't present a threat. The shooter was guilty of manslaughter.
Should all the police be guilty of manslaughter?
That would make it easier to prosecute those cases in which the suspect dies, but each cop argues that the prosecutor can't prove that his actions specifically caused the death.
18
@Norman Interesting point. Does this shared accountability apply to anyone working as a team?
I think not. The difference in the case of law enforcement is that a police team's objectives are authorized by law and regulated so as to reduce harm. If harm occurs, the responsibility is the officer's, their supervisors, and ultimately the policy makers above them.
3
Adnan Khan did not have one word of remorse for the victim of his crime who lost their life needlessly. No apologies to the family.
Nor did he state any remorse for the actions he took that resulted in that loss of life.
Were we to believe him the real victims are not the murdered, but those sentenced for the murders.
How about interviewing the family of the victim in the interest of fairness, so that they might state how the loss of the loved one has long impacted their lives?
They are still serving that unjust unwarranted sentence, and will be for the rest of their lives.
24
@Lawrence
The endless suffering of the victim's family is awful, but the point is that Adrian did not kill, and he was sentenced as though he had.
1
@Lawrence So you want him to talk about things outside the subject matter? Larry, if you asked Adnan what he felt about the victim, and he refused to answer, then and only then do you have a point.
3
The felony murder rule makes sense. I find it instructive that Mr Khan never mentions the victim in his case nor the victim’s family. His focus is on himself, the law that he feels wronged by, and later on all the other prisoners who he feels sympathy for because they, as he was, are in prison because someone died in the course of a crime they were involved in committing. Missing is sympathy or any apparent empathy for all the victims and their families and friends. The law sees it differently. It prioritizes the victims and states that engaging in a criminal activity puts innocent lives at risk with consequences intended and unintended flowing from the decision to participate. This is the correct priority. The crime has had profound consequences for the victim (and associated relationships). The law states there should be measurable, appropriate consequences for the perpetrators of the felony(s). The law can take into account various circumstances to lessen or increase the degree of accountability and the punishments that accompany these decisions Personally, i believe the
Law should hold accountable while also seeking to elicit remorse, create understanding and a sense of personal responsibility and eventually in some cases return and reform. It is not always possible and we should not risk further victims lightly. Mr Khan shows no apparent empathy for the victim of the crime he planned and perpetrated, including possibly unintended consequences. His concern is with himself
25
@DW "His focus is on himself, he feels wronged...."
Maybe after you spent sixteen years of your young life in prison, your own focus would be on your own self. Would it be unreasonable of me to think that?
1
@Jim Weidman
Hi Jim, I hear you and it’s fair comment, but I think it misses the point regarding the law. Khan is arguing against the unfairness of the law but doesn’t express remorse for being involved in a criminal enterprise, nor awareness of the role his participation played in someone losing their life, nor empathy for that loss. I understand that he feels his sentence was not justified by the crime. But most people writing on this thread, and I wager most Americans, disagree. For those of us who think that an individual case and sentence ought to be nuanced in relation to the people and circumstances involved, it would help Mr Khan’s case regarding the law in general if he expressed any understanding of the impact on others of his actions (and the actions of all those imprisoned, like him, for being a felony accomplice to murder). The law can be far more lenient where responsibility is taken and remorse is expressed.
As a practical matter, I've never seen a co-defendant that cooperated against the actual killer NOT receive considerable leniency. Most of the time, there is a significant amount of finger-pointing among the remaining defendants that proceed to trial. The thing getting lost in the ether is that the felony murder is meant to punish the foreseeable consequence. When you join an enterprise where a foreseeable consequence is that someone could lose their life, it hardly seems unfair to be held accountable when it happens. Should we abolish laws governing vehicular homicide? Surely no one intended to get drunk, drive a car, and kill an innocent person. To the family that lost a loved one, the lack of intent is cold solace.
35
Under your example, any passengers in the car who did not prevent the drunk person from driving would be held equally guilty.
24
@Jerry Engelbach Absolutely yes! They were part and parcel of actions with foreseeable consequences. Different would be if they ignored the state of inebriation of the driver.
6
@Jerry Engelbach This is where hypotheticals lose their edge. We could go down that rabbit hole and never come out. Could some prosecutor technically charge the passengers? Sure, but he wouldn't. ...And if he did, the jury wouldn't convict. That's why you've never seen it. Criminal liability is not dissimilar to pornography. You know it when you see it. Several armed men that rob a bank together are viscerally and intuitively different from the passengers of an inebriated driver.
4
This change needs to occur. I once sat on a jury that convicted a so-called accomplice to murder. He was a teen-ager of low intellect who had restored a junk car. A gang leader talked him into letting him drive his prized car around the block with a few other gangsters. The teen-age car owner sat in the back seat. During that drive, one of the passengers shot into a park and killed a child. As the law was written, we had to convict the car owner of the murder. I was so troubled that I asked the judge for guidance twice. Each time, I was told to follow the written instructions that had been given to the jury explaining the law. It was one of the worst moments in my life.
47
@katylee It’s not to be used lightly, but jury nullification is an option.
9
A juror cannot be coerced into making a particular decision, by a judge or anyone else.
You could have voted not to convict.
7
Perhaps you are not aware of the concept of “jury nullification”. A judge never mentions it but a jury always has the right to set aside any law that they believe is being applied unjustly. So you had both the legal power and moral understanding to save the owner of the car but you blew it. Your conscience should bother you forever.
Felony Murder’s primary purpose is in very specific cases where the culpability of each individual actor in the crime is impossible to determine. For example, a murder takes place during a robbery in a location that doesn’t have security cameras. The weapon, having been handle by everyone in the group, has everyone’s fingerprints on it. Each defendant swears under oath that it was their accomplice that fired the fatal shot. This creates reasonable doubt for each defendant. In this case would justice be served if no one was convicted for the victim’s murder simply because every defendant could have reasonably been the one that actually fired the gun? Felony murder allows all actors to be culpable. In my opinion it is necessary for cases like this but ONLY for cases like this.
Unfortunately laws must be general when created because we cannot create new laws for every possible situation. In our system where the DA aims for the highest possible punishment and the defense aims for the least, I feel there is often a lack of reasonability on the part of the state when deciding whether a particular crime should fall under felony murder or not. In the cases where the culpability of each individual is know (i.e. there is surveillance footage of the fatal shot that clearly identifies the shooter), this law should only be applied in cases where the non-shooter defendant knew that the possibility of this crime leading to a death were high and agreed to it anyway.
4
@Hannah I disagree. When I was taught the Felony Murder rule, the principal purpose given for its existence was to hold every person accountable for the foreseeable actions arising out of a violent felony. Robbery, which by definition is a theft committed with the use of force, is a violent felony. When a person agrees to participate in a robbery, that someone may be injured or killed is foreseeable. A person convicted of robbery should be held accountable for all foreseeable results of that crime.
42
But many people are in jail when they did not agree to participate in a violent felony, or a crime if any sort. What about them?
The felony murder rule is not "arcane." It is a standard element of criminal codes in the US and something every first year law student learns about. It is intended as a deterrent against participating in a crime with co-conspirators. In my opinion, the felony murder rule is a sensible rule that should remain on the books.
59
@James Grosser would you not agree that there should be an "out" when there may be extenuating circumstances towards a specific individual?
5
You sound like you are in law school. You need to think and realize that many of the laws you study are illogical, biased, and unjust. If you can’t figure out which ones wrong, congratulations! I think you will make a good lawyer.
1
Obviously there is nothing personal about it. But the prison industry is very grateful.
11
The last time I served jury duty it was a felony murder case and the prosecutor while questioning prospective jurors said there's no evidence the defendant pulled the trigger, just that he was part of a group of people committing a robbery and someone else in the group pulled the trigger and killed the victim-- could you still vote to convict for murder? That really split the jury pool right down the middle. I didn't get selected for the jury but I looked the case up several months later and the defendant was convicted and is now serving 50 to life.
5
If I consciously decide to drive 130 mph and I am caught I get a ticket. If I have an accident at 130 mph then I have committed vehicular manslaughter. What happens when you violate a law has a big effect on what the penalty should be. Is that right? I think so, but intent has to be determined in the sentence, an accomplice that didn't pull the trigger shouldn't get the same sentence as the person who pulled the trigger, but both participated in the murder even if one unwittingly.
17
@wayne griswald
And if you're an accountant who signs off on garbage financial statements when you know the client will use them to raise funds you should be guilty along with the client?
1
I sat on a jury (but didn't vote) where the accused did the same thing. A kid that was on a little league team I coached was out in the getaway car while the guy inside killed the victim. Both were part of groups that plotted crimes, plots that went badly. Both are now in jail for decades. Our state law is harsh on people who point loaded guns at others, and treats their intent as irrelevant if their crime produces death. We should keep this value in law: you don't point loaded guns at people. You don't commit crimes that involve pointing a loaded gun at a person.
27
@Sid Olufs - a kid? You lost me there.
"So Why Did I Just Serve 16 Years for Murder?"
Because you are fortunate to be a citizen who lives in a country that eventually, more often than not, gives a criminal a second chance and offered you parole. Consider yourself lucky.
54
Exceptionalism? Not here. Except for those fleeing the violence created by the U.S., in Central America, WHO would want to emigrate here? We've lost it, but that's exactly what tRumpsters want--isolation and failure. Here, the citizens are supposed to be afraid, because of stuff like this.
2
@ChesBay You make it seem as though having the opportunity to commit such crimes and receive a lighter sentence would or should be an inducement and attraction for immigration.
Did you really mean that??
Any time you agree to commit a crime you are risking conflict with law enforcement and the victims. If you make that decision you live with the results. It would have been much better for all if you had just gone to work that day.
57
@Helen G Did you watch the video? This man knows he is culpable for the wrong he committed. He knows he should serve time for that felony. But he did not commit murder. He should not serve time for that. Period.
You miss the point. It is about people who never agreed to commit a crime and in fact did not commit a crime. They are the ones most often charged under this law. Is that clear enough?
@Amala
There are some crimes that are so inherently dangerous (robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc.) that the offender knows or should know could potentially cause the victim to wind up dead.
(If I see you on the street and decide I'm going to rob you [i.e., use force to take something from you that you don't want to give me], I should know that the force could possibly escalate to a level that I didn't originally intend and that the end result could be your death.)
If, knowing that, an offender still chooses to to proceed with the offense (i.e., choosing to put an innocent victim in a potentially life-threatening situation), should s/he not suffer the worst-possible consequences if the worst-possible outcome occurs?
1
The degree of culpability is calibrated in sentencing. Ideally.
In reality, many inmates have been condemned via conspiracy theory/law of parties when their behavior was not equivalent to murder.
Particularly hard-hit are women who hang around with violent men. Yes, they provide "support" but no, they do not act with the same mens rea, or guilty mind. If judges in sentencing cannot act with appropriate discretion, then the law must be changed.
24
When the punishment does not fit the crime, it is an injustice. Where there is a sense of injustice, citizens do not respect law and order.
It applies to the felony murder cases discussed by Adnan Khan. It also applies to lenient sentences, such as the recent NJ rape case where the judge's "good family" remark about the rapist led to his resignation.
Most people are not clear about the legal distinctions between First degree murder, Second-degree murder, Manslaughter, & Infanticide. Intent is a major factor.
The debate about whether the criminal act itself or the intention of the accused is more significant in assessing punishment is an ancient philosophical problem.
Some 2,500 years ago in India, the Jains said it should be the act and Buddhists said it should be the intent. Both Jains & Buddhists are atheists. These so-called "religions" rejected the existence of a Creator God, but believe in rebirths & karmic consequence. Thus their sense of "punishment" extends beyond the present life.
This debate is never settled because it is entwined in religious dogma, philosophy, ethics, culture and tradition. Don't even bring up Sharia Law.
3
I'm cognizant of the fact that our justice system is one of the harshest among similarly developed countries. I'm also cognizant of the fact that it tends to disproportionately affect low income communities.
That said I feel no sympathy for Mr. Khan and I feel no desire to remove or change this law.
To recall my two law classes, a defendant is liable for negligence when they create a scenario in which it was reasonable to expect harm. By planning and engaging in a robbery while bearing deadly weapons, I feel Mr. Khan created such a scenario.
I would say it's unfortunate that he had to pay such a price because of another person, but at least he knew such an outcome was possible. The victim, on the other hand, had no choice in the matter and paid. far steeper price for the actions of Mr. Khan and his associates.
63
@Nick
I would have to agree. Our legal system has lots of issues, but this is way down on the list if it is a problem at all.
8
This law applies to people who did not plan the crime, did not participate in it, and who committed no crime themselves. What about them?
Aren't laws like this meant as a deterrent that you should think about before you act with others to commit a felony that could possibly result in murder. Was the murder planned? If so, he is as culpable as the person who committed it. You can't act in concert and enable someone to commit a crime and then claim innocence of that crime.
19
@Deborah
But the reality is that the fear of punishment is not a deterrent. I ask this question every time I take my high school juniors to visit Angola State Penitentiary in Louisiana, which I do every year for the past fifteen years. The response from the inmates with whom we speak is that life imprisonment or a death sentence is not a deterrent. They don’t think they’ll get caught. How many of us have thought about some illness, disaster, or consequence of a choice and said to ourselves, “Oh, that will never happen to me”?
And, as Mr. Khan says, he was unaware of the law. Again, I ask 125 juniors every year if they realize they can go to jail if they are stopped by the police and the cops find illegal drugs on the friend riding in their car or if the friend robs a convenience store while they’re pumping gas. Guess how many seventeen year olds are aware of that law.
10
It appears that people commenting here are ideal citizens, respectful of the law in every sense.
@Rich So maybe we should have no laws at all? I mean if no one follows them or knows what they are?
Many of the comments point out that the armed robbery entailed the risk someone would be killed so Mr. Khan owns the murder. But we HAVE laws to punish armed robbery, including all the risk it involves. Even when an armed robbery does not result in death, it causes just as much risk of death.
As a lawyer, I’ve always been baffled by this: Why not punish the crime rather than the consequences?
14
@Sara P The consequences of a simple armed robbery that results in death of an innocent person are different from the consequences of a simple armed robbery that could have, but did not kill someone.
Taken separately, an armed robbery and killing someone could be treated differently than the compound actions.
When combined, the effects on victims and society are amplified and we should not ignore that.
13
So the person who kills should be convicted of murder and the others convicted of armed robbery.
That's the only outcome that serves justice fairly.
@Sara P It must be motivated by an attempt to give satisfaction to the victim's need for revenge, which is a function of the actual consequences. Maybe a legal system must have a touch of this to maintain legitimacy with the population it governs. But I would tend to agree with you.
In reading the comment section, I am getting the impression that many readers perceive that the accomplice is arguing for NO sentence. He is staying that receiving a life sentence for murder is unfair. I agree. The accomplice should receive a sentence for armed robbery. If I were the decedents relative or friend I might want a more severe sentence. But my need for revenge is not the duty of the courts or the law.
36
@Jody--Revenge has become the motive for sentencing. That's why victim statements are allowed, and victims' families are permitted to sit in court with prominently displayed photos of the victims, or wearing t-shirts with photos of victims on them. Victims or their families are sometimes permitted to have a say in sentencing. Retribution rather than justice has become the norm.
It isn't revenge to sentence a.murderer to life in prison. It is the only way to ensure they do not kill again. There is this thing called public safety....
@Jody
It's not a desire for revenge that compels us to advance public policy that deters violent crimes. If you decide to rape someone, rob someone, or kidnap someone, you absolutely know that you are engaging in a very dangerous act that could potentially bring about the victim's death (even if you absolutely do not want that and plan the crime in a manner to prevent that). The crime might require more force than you anticipate and you may accidentally kill your victim. Your rape/robbery/kidnapping victim could suffer a panic attack that triggers cardiac arrest and die. Or your accomplice could go outside the parameters or your agreed-to plan and the victim could wind up dead.
If the worst possible outcome happens to the victim, an outcome that the criminal could have or should have known could happen, why then should the worst possible outcome not happen to the criminal?
2
The accomplice liability is not during the commission of ANY felony. The felony has to be one of the specific listed VIOLENT felonies like robbery, rape, arson, kidnapping, etc Because committing one of these dangerous felonies carries a high risk of death, accomplices are held to to all outcomes that flow from committing such a dangerous crime.
Beyond the concept of accountability, this law has so many problems with it and was so poorly written, that murderers will definately be set free.
11
The comments here bear out one poinr clearly. For many people, most perhaps, the purpose of the criminal justice system is to exact retribution. all moral questions aside, the desire for vengeance seems an ineradicable part of human nature.
38
@richard
The desire for vengeance is definitely strong in the US and that is why it has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Virtually all other Western countries have far lower incarceration rates as well as lower crime rates. Mass incarceration costs a fortune, ruins lives and decimates communities. Convicting someone of a crime they didn't actually commit is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and has no place in a fair legal system.
38
@richard
I also am not in favor of using our criminal justice system for retribution; I believe its primary purpose to be the protection of the public. But that being said, Mr. Khan did commit a crime that resulted in the death of someone and that, to me, says he is a threat to public safety. I am fine with getting rid of felony murder but I am not fine with freeing people who present a clear risk to the public. If the CJ system gets rid of felony murder, they need to make sure there is still a mechanism available to keep people locked up for however long is necessary to ensure public safety.
12
@richard
Thanks for your reply. It is astounding to me that our society seems so intent of retribution. It is true that the murdered man is the victim. We should be doing everything possible to re-assimilate somebody in the society. It is the moral thing to do and the economic thing to do. Incarceration does not bring back the life of the victim.
I can be even be more harsh: The desire for retribution is disgusting to me.
1
other than the law against murder, it is hard to think of a law that makes more good sense than felony murder.
14
Rather than change the law it might be easier if one does not commit the felony that precedes a death.
51
The point is that many people charged did not commit any felony but were charged anyway. But thanks for playing...
Mr. Khan took part in an armed robbery, and someone died as a direct result of he and his accomplices being armed. While I would agree that a charge of murder isn’t warranted in cases where, for example, someone choked to death swallowing the (illegal) pill you just sold them, if such illicit sale was a felony, I think the felony murder rule is justified in cases such as Mr. Khan’s. In reality in most cases it would only be used as a tool to get accomplices to testify against the actual trigger man. Here is one reason why the rule originated, and why it can’t be easily dismissed; what if it became impossible to determine which of 2 armed robbers actually shot and killed a store clerk, or even a whole store full of people. What if both discharged their weapons, but only one bullet was fatal? In both cases, the felony murder rule is necessary; in the first case because otherwise neither is held accountable for a murder, or even a mass murder, that was clearly intentional, while in the second case both intended to murder, but only one was a good shot. Perhaps Mr. Khan’s case was different, but I doubt it. People make a decision to rob someone at the point of a weapon. It’s a little late after the fact to claim that you didn’t know someone could be hurt, or killed. If Mr. Khan had handed the victim a note that demanded money, and the victim had a heart attack and, despite Mr. Khan staying on the scene and administering CPR, had died, then he’d have a case for overcharging.
25
I believe the felony murder rule is not just an artifact, but it is also an incredibly unfair tool used to routinely brutalize the people caught in its snare. While there is little question about the destructive nature of crime on its victims, far too little is cared about or understood concerning the brutal effects of punishment on society.
People Involved in criminal activity are not islands unto themselves. Punishment fair or unfair does not just affect them. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the harsh punishments do not eliminate crime, but we are only just now beginning to understand how harsh punishments affect the whole of society.
Frederick Douglass said it best when referring to slavery. He said it poisons both the slave and slave owner. These harsh punishments are similar. They hurt all of society not just the intended recipient. Yet somehow we feel It is both just and necessary. It is neither, and these brutal ideas and actions are poisons to our society.
34
@John: I guess it was just coincidental that Mr. Khan was involved in an armed robbery. After all who would ever think that participating in a crime of violence could end up with someone getting hurt or killed? One has to take responsibility for one's voluntary acts that risk the injury or death of to someone else. It is not like slavery at all.
20
@John - very well said!
Occasionally someone sees the obvious. Thank you for pointing out this truth but you must know that most people cannot understand what you are saying. They are the products of the poison that has long infected our society.
I’m sorry, don’t conspire to commit a felony and then you have no worries about rogue accomplices. And while you’re at it, don’t commit solo felonies either.
I know the justice system is rife with injustices, but people still have to be accountable for their choices and accept the consequences.
52
What about the people who made the choice to not commit a crime and who were unaware of any crime being committed but who are in jail for life under this law. What about them?
Felony-murder is supposed to be a deterrent. But even if not, why should a participant in a violent crime (burglary, arson, robbery, kidnapping, rape, escape, sexual assault, sodomy) not go to jail for the murder that an accomplice committed? The defendant is permitted to defend themself by claiming lack of knowledge--albeit while admitting to the underlying crime. Not unfair; only reform might be to reduce the sentence away from life.
7
Another issue floated to make the Democratic Party lose elections. Sorry, if you don’t want a murder conviction, don’t participate in armed robbery. It’s simple, and the idea that an accompanying robber is not accountable is repulsive to the families suffering the lose of a loved one. Just like the fact that the grief is shared, so is the responsibility. And so should the accountability. Just because it is an “arcane” concept does not make it incorrect.
31
As if Republicans are ideal citizens...
@Ben P Of course people shouldn't commit violent crimes. But there is a significant difference between intending to kill someone, and being involved with very dangerous criminal behavior.
That is the difference that reflective societies take account of, rather conflating the killer with the killer's cohorts.
1
My first instinct is similar to other readers'. No such thing as "unexpected murder" during the course of a robbery. Still, it's worth thinking about this a bit more in the context of the question of "why" we jail murderers. Punishment vs/and prevention.
For punishment sake, it's not "arcane" to treat all accomplices equally harsh to the murderer...the getaway driver analogy everyone uses.
For prevention sake - one can definitely make the case that it takes a different kind of person to 'pull the trigger' than it takes to drive the getaway car...and one is more likely to be a future danger than the other.
Agree with others though, very unsympathetic person to make the case here.
8
@Will: We jail murderers for two reasons. Human nature demands punishment for out of control dangerous behaviors and we hope that such punishments will deter others people from acting is the same deadly way.
Yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to develop sympathy for criminals and make it appear that criminals are actually victims.
To set the record straight, victims of crimes are the true victims, the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals.
I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities. Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those not released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will.
It's simple: Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
33
Thank you Mr. Trump.
@Bobotheclown
You’re welcome, Bobothe clown.
I hope you will consider the possibility that there are life-long Democrats like me who believe that crime is a serious problem nation-wide and that criminals have earned their punishment.
If there are particular laws you disagree with, you are free to work with local or state or federal entities to try to get them changed.
Yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to develop sympathy for criminals and make it appear that criminals are actually victims.
To set the record straight, victims of crimes are the true victims, the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals.
I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities. Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those not released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will.
It's simple: Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
10
@Mon Ray On the surface it seems logical that one shouldn't do the crime if he can't do the time.
I invite you to take a look at Professor Harvey Silverglate's book, "Three Felonies a Day," and consider the proper definition of "crime" in the United States today. You might be surprised to learn how many "crimes" you committed this week. And you'll soon learn that many of those absurd "crimes" carry federal sentences that involve years, not weeks, in prison.
I guess if you're not Black or don't stand out too much, you can scrape by. But a lot of people are ambushed by this system which is simply terrorism. The Felony Murder Rule really doesn't mean much in the context of this greater injustice.
2
@Charles Coughlin
About time somebody needlessly injected race into the story. I was getting worried there for a minute!
By committing a violent felony, you are taking on all the responsibilities of the situation. Perhaps the person who was shot would have liked to leave, but they couldn’t because this man had a gun and was participating in a crime that stripped the victim of all agency.
I say keep the law and let the man rot. If someone died by another’s hand while you committed a felony, then you should pay for that.
17
Accomplices are held as guilty for good reason: without accomplices, the murder likely cannot happen. Shared responsibility is a good thing.
283
@Grittenhouse That's why every country in the world that had the Felony Murder Rule abolished it save for the US.
19
@Grittenhouse
That's exactly why Accessory crimes exist. They recognize that people were somehow involved in a crime, but because they were not a primary perpetrator, they usually receive a less severe punishment.
These felony murder laws go against typical accessory laws. Instead of using nuance to determine if someone was simply an accessory or a primary perp, they declare that everyone is equally culpable.
35
@Grittenhouse
Group crimes are often charged harsher than an individual's, because more harm can result and it creates widespread crime. That's why conspiracy is a separate charge.
4
This murder would not have happened if the robbery had not been planned and executed. Furthermore, if any of the assailants was armed, it is tantamount to admitting that the use of lethal force was an acceptable outcome. No way this man should get a pass. Maybe there should be one notch below capital murder that doesn't carry a life sentence, but 16 years doesn't sound like too harsh a penalty in this case.
17
HE did the crime. So HE does the time. Too bad for Adnan. Too sad for Adnan. But HE had choices, and HE made a bad choice. So HE pays the price. Time to close the book on this criminal.
19
The felony murder rule is not an “...arcane legal doctrine...”. It is a Rule that incarcerates criminals who engaged in a crime in which a person or people died. This guy participated in an armed robbery. The victim died. The only problem in this case is that Khan did not do Life.
Sixteen years was not nearly enough punishment.
18
Sorry Mr Khan but I disagree.
You took part in the planning of the crime, if you hadn't maybe the crime wouldn't have occurred.
You participated in the crime, if you hadn't maybe the crime might not of occurred.
You participated in two events by your own choosing, that resulted in someone having their life ended.
You are just as responsible as the partner that committed the act.
25
I disagree with this piece. If you are part of a team, crew, gang, group, whatever, that sets in motion an illegal activity during which someone is injured or, as here, killed, then every member of that illegal enterprise is equally responsibility for and guilty of murder or assault. Period. Felony murder is not antiquated. It is the only reasonable response.
I used to be a prosecutor. I prosecuted felony murder cases. I then became a public defender and defended them as well. I am fairly liberal - fair - when it comes to crime and punishment. Felony murder is fair.
402
Apparently the NYT agrees with your position, but I do not. For one thing you only apply this to illegal activity. If this principle were also included in legal activity where someone dies or is murdered, you might see the principle a different light. Maybe not.
Imagine if everyone on a camping trip was charged for murder if someone in their party killed someone. Actually it has probably happened before in the US, because a crafty prosecutor knows how to insinuate they weren’t camping at all but had as their underlying intent not a pleasure trip, but to commit crime.
That’s how it works in the US, and that is why this rule has been eliminated elsewhere. We have the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world, and probably the harshest punishments too. Yet we still have crime. Isn’t it time for some new ideas besides putting people under the jail.
66
Look at the shootout in Waco a few years ago where bikers showed up for a planning event at a local restaurant. This was a legal gathering with no criminal intent.
When a dispute happened in the parking lot and several people were shot and killed, the entire gathering was subsequently charged with conspiracy to commit murder. That was over 200 people in one conspiracy.
It does happen.
33
@John
Mr. Khan was not exactly on a camping trip when this happened. He was involved in an armed robbery that involves threatening the victims with use of deadly force.
60
Felony murder is one reason the US is such an outlier in incarceration of its citizens. No other country comes close - China has many times our population, but fewer people incarcerated. As a percentage of population it is the same story.
When the US sticks out from other countries in such a negative way it is time to look for improvement. And commenters should look beyond the need for vengeance when considering this issue. It is human to want to completely ruin the lives of evildoers, but our justice system is supposed to be better than that.
7
@KittyKitty7555
China just changes to name to re-education camps. Also how would you know any of the state controlled statistics are the truth?
@Johnson,
The US has been at the top of the list for percentage of population and absolute number of incarcerated people for years. Please, every single country that reports these stats is not lying.
Society should never punish citizens for offenses they didn't commit. Yet innocent people are regularly held accountable for the racist policies of their ancestors.
4
@Gerry Bruder They're not innocent. They participated in a crime and knew they were participating in a crime. Crimes can be risky. Bad things can happen that were not foreseen, but this is part of the risk these criminals bought into. Keep the felony murder rule.
8
@Gerry Bruder
I must have missed all those trials for descendants of slave-owners getting locked up...
Being asked to help fix a problem from which you directly or indirectly benefit is not the same as being held accountable for the original acts.
9
Oh, if that were actually true, we would be such a different country!!!
Instead, we just talk about accountability which is perhaps slightly uncomfortable but very different.
It is ver hard for me to generate a lot of sympathy here. Mr. Khan was a willing part of a crime that resulted in the death of an innocent person. He could have chosen not to do this crime - perhaps if he had done that, his victim would still be alive. Finally, It is hard for me to understand why anyone would want to even remain alive after participating in such a crime. What is the point? You have already demonstrated by your choices that you have failed terribly as a human, so what is the point of even your continued existence? Existence is generally pretty pointless anyway, but combine it with total moral failure, and one must think long and hard why even to continue. I see this much more a story of personal than legal failure.
3
@HM
"Existence is generally pretty pointless anyway . . ." Why the concern over ending something that is pointless? How could such a thing as "moral failure" be of any relevance to a pointless existence?
Ah yes, the finest Justice system in the world. Or more accurately, the more money you have the finer the Justice you get.
9
I generally look forward to reading the comments of NYT readers which are very often thoughtful, knowledgable and well argumented… except when the subject is crime and punishment. Americans, and even liberal NYT readers, become incredibly narrow minded, cruel and vengeful when the subject is how to deal with people having committed crimes. Lock 'em up and throw away the key seems to be the simple answer that most Americans adhere to.
Strange that not many seem to be bothered by the fact that this system does not work, that the USA has one of the largest jail populations on the planet, is the only « advanced » nation to maintain capital punishment and yet remains a violent, crime ridden society. Nations that have a much more humane justice system have far lower crime rates than the USA.
Strange also (I'm being ironic) that such a « Christian » nation practices forgiveness at such an inexistent level.
11
@Alan We have the largest prison population because of the thousands jailed for one-time drug possession and like crimes. Once someone is killed in an attack, the game changes. Forgiveness will not bring back the person whose life has been taken in that crime.
12
@SFR The point of forgiveness is not to bring back the dead, nor to pretend that an evil action never happened. It is to choose to move forward in ways that release both the criminal and the victim (or the victim's proxies by relation or by love) from being bound in that evil moment for all time. "Forgiveness is an invitation to the imagination. It is not forgetfulness of the past, rather it is the risk of a future other than the one imposed by the past or by memory." - Christian Duquac
2
@Alan
Indeed. If I have to read "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" one more time, my eyes will roll straight to the back of my head.
There is no benefit to sentencing based on such trite sentiment. Nobody is suggesting that he didn't deserve to serve any prison time— not even he is suggesting that. But he was given a LIFE SENTENCE at 18 years of age, for a murder he didn't commit. Drunk drivers can kill someone with their car and receive a lighter sentence than what this man received. What about the "Affluenza Teen," who killed 4 people while driving intoxicated and was sentenced to no active incarceration for the 4 counts of manslaughter he plead guilty to? In contrast, I stole my parents' car in 1996 (at age 16) and was incarcerated for a year.
Where is the justice? Life sentences should be reserved for heinous, premeditated crimes where the offender is deemed likely to reoffend. If incarceration was really as much about public safety as it was about retribution, we would have different sentencing laws.
Mr. Adnan was old enough to know what he did was wrong, but to classify him as a murderer and a lost cause is sad. I hope none of you, with your harsh judgements, ever have a teenager of your own who makes a similarly poor decision. Perhaps you'll say that you wouldn't raise a child like that, but my mother would have said the same before I went off the rails as a teen. People can change. We should let them.
1
Mr. Khan:
The felony murder rule serves a useful purpose. You knew that the drug robbery would use weapons and force and therefore might cause bodily injury to the victim. Nevertheless you decided to participate and made the robbery possibly. Therefore you deserve the consequences.
20
Why should we have sympathy for this criminal?
He plotted a crime in which guns were used, a murder committed, and he says that since he didn't plan/want/actually commit the murder, he should be set free.
What about the victims family, or the victim, they cant be set free/resurrected from the prison that this criminal created
15
It’s only an arcane legal doctrine to people who choose to engage in violent crime and associate themselves with people willing to kill. To people who want to live violence-free lives, it’s an important protection. Robbery is a violent crime and Mr. Khan is a violent criminal. Was this the sole robbery he committed? He had a role in another person’s violent death. Conduct yourself in a manner that does lead to the death of innocent people and the felony murder rule never be a problem for you. Also I don’t buy the fact that Mr. Khan and his associate went unarmed to rob a drug dealer. I am fairly certain almost everyone charged under the felony murder rule claims they didn’t know their associates were armed or that they might kill someone. People do terribly stupid things when they are young. It’s a credit to Mr. Khan that he has made something of himself, but he seems to greatly discount his role in the violent death of a human being.
10
But it’s not an important protection. It’s a protection that is part of a broken system that contributes both to our having the world’s highest incarceration rates and gun violence rates that are up there with El Salvador and Venezuela. If it worked, I’d support it. As it is, it’s head-for-an-eye (not even eye-for-an eye) and we are all blind and poorer for it.
5
@Jean Auerbach
I worked as a prosecutor and then as defense attorney and I respectfully disagree. Mr. Khan has stated elsewhere that if he had known that a weapon was going to be involved he would not have gone with his accomplice. Thus the idea that one should do whatever they can to avoid the use of deadly weapons in this society was concept familiar to Mr. Khan.
I am not sure what gun violence rates have to do to Mr. Khan's case, but the homicide rate in the US (5.3/100k) is nowhere near what it is El Salavdor (61.8/100k) or Venezuela 56.33/100k). That there are far too many people in US jails and prisons for NON-VIOLENT crimes, in particular drug offenses, is also another issue as Mr. Khan was never one of those people. If you play a role in the violent death of another person while you are committing a serious crime, expect there to be grave consequences. Mr. Kahn's "I didn't know that was the law" has never been a valid defense. In my opinion, marijuana should be decriminalized, which would help reduce the rate of incarceration, but interestingly it would not have prevented a death in this case, because Mr. Khan didn't want to pay for his marijuana. I truly hope his case draws attention to the consequences of participating in violent crimes with the aid of others. There is no room for violence whatsoever.
1
You served 16 years in prison for participating in a crime which included a murder.Whether you or your partner pulled the trigger or administered the fatal blow that ended a human life and destroyed the lives of the victims family and friends changes nothing.
Your claim of being a victim of injustice is self-serving nonsense.
26
The first paragraph of the article is vague. I want to know more detail. Like how many accomplices, all their criminal records, age and facts about the victim, time and location of the violent crime, sentences of all involved and what crimes they were all convicted of, etc.
So, once I have all that information I can evaluate my standing opinion that they ALL deserve life in prison, period, the end.
1
I'm a law student and generally support the felony murder rule. If you agree to take part in a robbery, you assume the risk that someone may end up dead; a normal person could anticipate that, especially in a case like this where multiple people set upon a victim. Mr. Khan served 16 years because he participated in a violent crime and someone ended up dead. It is illuminating that he doesn't take any responsibility for his behavior, and the only person he seems to feel sorry for here is himself.
142
@Grace
I was a law student 45 years ago. You sum up my views as well.
19
@Grace Think of Uber. Uber's founders weren't stupid. They knew that some people would die while using their app. Some would be killed by drunk drivers, for example. Are the founders just as culpable for those deaths as those drunk drivers? No.
You might argue that the founders share in *some* of the blame, because they were involved in these deaths, or because they helped to expose their drivers and riders to a foreseeable. But there's no way they are *equally* worthy of blame.
What does this show?
That there's a difference between a killer (someone who directly causes a death) and someone who is merely involved in a death or who helps to increase its probability.
It is unjust to always hold two such people equally responsible.
7
@Roger Are you really suggesting that someone who steals drugs from another person and then stands by as the victim is stabbed to death after premeditating the theft with several other people is somehow equivalent to the CEO of Uber establishing a company for which a tiny percentage of employees might eventually die while doing their jobs because of the criminal behavior of an unrelated individual?
17
This article reminds me of the Op Ed a while back where Chelsea Manning argued for trans people to be allowed to serve in the military. A great message with reasonable arguments put forward in a very unsympathetic way. There are examples of this law being used in preposterous ways that immediately inflame a reasonable observer’s sense of justice. But a man sentenced for murder because his co-conspirator in a violent crime committed a murder seems like the law functioning as intended.
34
Years ago in Maryland 2 men were robbing a liquor store and as they left an off duty police officer shot and killed one of the men. No one in the store was injured but the living robber was charged with murder. My guess he was surprised as he was sentenced. Last summer 4 teenagers were robbing houses in Baltimore County and one of them was left in the car. A police officer arrived and attempted to stop him as he drove away leaving the other 3. He ran over the officer and she died. All 4 of them were convicted of murder. I can hear the detective now saying to the 3 who were not in the car, "Just admit you were robbing the house, you were not in the car and did not run the police officer over." It is legal for detectives today anything to persons they are questioning and the consequences of not understanding the law is sometimes severe.
8
@Bob
That doesn’t make sentencing the other 3 for murder right, though!
The law makes no sense and, as the article indicates, the U.S. is a backwards exception in holding other responsible — and to the same extent!
6
@Bob If you decide to commit a violent crime, you are reasonably held to account for the results of that crime, even if not anticipated by you. For example, you rob a bank and the teller you are pointing a gun at has a heart attack (or you tape her mouth shut and she has an asthma attack and dies). Or one of your accomplices does so. Or a cop tries to stop the crime and shoots and hits a bystander. Bad things often result when people commit violent crimes. It's one of the many reasons you shouldn't commit a violent crime. The fact that the you did not intend or directly cause the bad thing is irrelevant. It's one thing if you did not actually intend to participate in the crime (you went into the bank with a friend who told you they just wanted to make a deposit). But if you and the friend walk in with guns blazing with the intention to threaten people with death if they don't give you money, then bad things are likely to happen and you are responsible. Maybe think about it first.
2
Having served as a juror on a murder trial the evidence speaks for itself. The intent and motive is examined very closely. Each element of the each crime charged is contained in the jury instructions.
Believe me these jurors give the benefit of any doubt whenever possible even when done exists. Jurors are actually performing mental gymnastics to set criminals free everyday.
The lack of remorse and the denial of the perpetrator as demonstrated here is absolutely unforgivable.
64
@Charlie
You’ve completely missed the point. It’s the law that’s the problem. The jurors can weigh all the evidence they want to, but if the law says that the accomplices are to be found guilty of nurses, too, even if they didn’t participate in the violence, that’s just wrong.
Plus, expressing remorse has nothing to do with determination of guilt, so you’re mixing apples and oranges!
24
You are unreasonable. The crime was commissioned and committed with your participation and without any coercion on you then your responsibility to all that violence in that crime belongs to you and as well. Own it!
If you don’t have the time to serve then DO NOT do the crime.
21
@Marsha Pembroke "nurses" ???
8
I understand the author's argument and can agree, to an extent. Prosecutors use this charge as a bludgeon, particularly in multi-defendant cases. Read through a typical indictment in a multi-defendant murder case and you can find scores of these counts. For example, a typical crime of armed robbery against a person committed by several defendants in Georgia against a person sitting in his or her car (assume the car is taken by gunpoint and money as well): the charging instrument could include charges of armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, aggravated assault, possession of firearm during commission of a felony, and possession of firearm by convicted felon (if a felon for that defendant). Now, if the victim dies as a result of this armed robbery and/or carjacking, ALL of the defendants are subject to felony murder charges for EACH of the underlying offenses listed above. So, as you can see, an indictment can have multiple counts of felony murder for each defendant. There are merger rules that can apply at sentencing for some counts but the felony murder counts give the prosecution a slew of opportunities for a jury to find someone guilty of murder.
I'm not a fan of removing the rule bur instead allowing defendants to raise an affirmative defense against the charge and to have the jury advised of the elements for this defense. New York State allows this, for example.
The rule is harsh, and is overused by prosecutors, but perpetrators should not be off the hook for this.
16
I believe that intention should be considered an important factor in determining guilt, or its degree. That's the difference between murder and manslaughter. If a person is told that a couple of acquaintances plan to distract a shopkeeper and lift a sixpack and that no one is armed, and is asked to drive and wait outside, he has no reasonable expectation that violence might occur. If he is asked to drive the getaway car for an armed robbery he does have, or should have, such an expectation; then I think the felony-murder rule should apply.
15
@Thomas
The intention is to commit a crime. With a weapon.
Do not do that.
If you do, you belong in a cage. Forever. There is no excuse.
@Thomas
Should he be held just as culpable, though?!
Consider if he has no weapon, no expectation that anyone will be shot (brandishing guns, one expects compliance), and wasn’t at the immediate scene.
Consider also that the U.S. appears to be an international exception in applyin such a Draconian interpretation
In the commission of a crime, it is reasonable to assume that brute force and fear of injury is what compels an individual to accept victimization. At any moment, the victim may chose to resist if the odds tilt to his favor. Criminals purposefully come prepared to be successful and force is accepted as necessary. You cannot back off and argue, I was just robbing, but my accomplice used more force than I was prepared or agreed to use.
74
Bingo. Someone who gets it.
3
What about if you argue you had nothing to do with it, were not part of the planning, and had no idea what someone else in the car was suddenly going to do. You were in the car because you needed a ride.
Then what?
1
@Bobotheclown
That's not the argument being made here. No one is asserting an innocent bystander should be prosecuted for felony murder. But where, as here, the defendant is clearly engaged in the underlying felony, holding him liable for the murder is absolutely just.
2
Several of the top comments approve of the felony murder rule, but are making assumptions that it is used only in armed robbery-type situations and is applied sensibly. The man sentenced for murder because the police killed his friend during a robbery shows that this is not the case.
Also think about the range of crimes that are now considered felonies: non-violently obstructing the construction of a pipeline or being at a protest where vandalism occurred.
Of course protestors are often white and it is unlikely, perhaps, that the felony murder rule would be used when the original felony wasn’t a robbery. The rule is probably applied selectively and in a racially-biased manner, because this is how our criminal justice system works.
Even criminals committing a robbery or driving the getaway car for a violent crime have the right to be charged only with the crime they commit in every other country in the world. Those countries are right and we are wrong on this.
30
If you intentionally use the threat of deadly force to steal or commit whatever crime, and someone else dies because of that choice, including when a police officer is forced to shoot your partner in crime, you should be held responsible for that death. You murdered your friend when you agreed to go put his and others lives at serious risk with your crimes. I don’t understand why people get caught up on the technicality of who pulled the trigger. Responsibility should be taken for a risk you should have every reason to be aware of before you start playing Russian roulette with peoples lives for your own personal gain. Most applications of this law that I have observed have been sensible.
4
@Hdb What specific crime has the driver of a getaway car committed other than involvement in the crimes of his accomplices? It's legal to park in front of a bank and it's legal to drive away. Now suppose that the robbers take a hostage and the hostage is shoved in the back of the getaway driver's car while an accomplice holds a gun to the victim's head. Is the getaway driver now more culpable because the violence is occurring in front of him and not in the bank? When you act in concert, you are all responsible for the crime.
3
The most serious objection to the felony murder charge is that it is just a tool for prosecutors that works only when applied to the low level criminals.
Can you name one "crime boss" or "drug lord" who was convicted of felony murder when his underlings murdered a victim in the course of committing felony crimes such as drug sales?
Can you name one "gang" whose leaders and members were all rounded up and charged with felony murder in support of murder to enforce the gang's territorial claims?
There is no justification for felony murder if it is not, or cannot, be used successfully to attack organized criminal activity.
46
That’s not how it works. If the mob “boss” wasn’t there at the drug deal, then that makes things harder to prove. That’s why it’s not successfully used like that as often. But of course it is used on organized crime as well, but there are far fewer targets at any given time in org crim because those operations are long and slow moving until the end typically.
7
@Max marshall Aren't you admitting that the felony murder statutes cannot be, or in practice are not, used to successfully prosecute the big and are only useful in prosecuting the little fish?
Isn't such a statute of questionable worth?
2
@OldBoatMan
Seriously? It has been all over the news - El Chapo by way of one of many examples.
2
We need to find out if the felony murder rule is a deterrent to crime. If not, then let's change it. It is long past time to determine this for all felony sentencing. The need to remove persistent, dangerous and irredeemable felons to a secure facility for many years at a time in order to protect innocent people is separate from the issue of punishment.
8
@Sarah--Punishment for committing crimes doesn't have much to do with whether it deters others, or with whether it serves justice either. Incarceration is really revenge, that's all. But, we're too enlightened to admit that what we want from the justice system is simply payback, so we claim it's a deterrent. If imprisonment or even the death penalty was a deterrent, we wouldn't have any crime. Murder would only have ever happened once.
24
@Ms. Pea -- First, the death penalty deters at least one person from committing further crime, although obviously life in prison would have that specific effect.
But the notion that we still have murders so there's no such thing as a deterrent is wrong, and in my mind at least, juvenile. We don't have a way of determining how many people choose not to commit a crime because of fear of punishment, but we can be reasonably sure that number is greater than zero.
2
@Sarah
The rule removes animals from society.
There is no excuse for committing a crime, particularly with people who have weapons or have no regard for human life.
2
I am concerned that removing this law removes accountability of accomplices to serious crimes. Should Mr. Khan have been allowed to go free because he didn’t actually pull the trigger? What is a “fair” sentence for someone who participates in a crime in which someone loses their life? If he had chosen not to be a criminal would this murder have ever happened? An accomplice is exactly that. Someone who aids and abets others in performing a crime, in this case murder.
35
@JRS: He wasn't asking to go free. He was asking to be charged for what he did, not for what others did.
10
@Frank O
If he didn’t want to be charged with murder, he shouldn’t have gone in to the robbery with firearms.
5
@JRS In Mr. Khan's own words from the videos he states that he committed a crime and serving time was appropriate.
What about the kid who went to jail because the police killed his friend as he was running away? Does that sound ok?
2
No. If you commit a crime in which you ought to realize someone could be killed, then you are responsible if that happens.
This was armed robbery. The robbery went in with weapons. Obviously someone might use one of those weapons. Someone did. Those who did the robbery together knew or should have known that could happen.
Reckless or wanton behavior means a conscious disregard of known risk. Violence includes using the threat of violence. Use of violence with conscious disregard of the risks of innocents being hurt is criminal.
This writer clearly does not yet understand why he was locked up. He should be kept locked up until he understands, and reforms. Right now, he's as much a danger of doing it again as were his fellow murderers when they did this together.
106
@Mark Thomason
“He should be kept locked up until he understands and reforms”
???
He wasn’t let off for good behavior. He was let off because the state law changed reducing the punishment to 3 years.
3
@Patrician -- Then the state law should not have been changed, and he should not be on the streets with this attitude.
10
Sorry, but I disagree. Any participant in a crime which results in murder shares equally in the guilt.
76
@Robert Howard
In 2003 the USA killed perhaps 100,000 Iraq soldiers and civilians based on the threat of WMD that were never found. We have no excuse. It was a collosial crime. 100,000 people killed. Would you agree that you were part of that crime as you were aware of our military attacking country that was found to have not been producing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and your taxes were used to buy the weapons used?
8
@Larry Lynch
I don't necessarily support the felony murder rule but this is an awful argument. The government mandated us to pay those taxes and choose entirely independently to invade Iraq. We're no more responsible than a kidnap victim taken along for a robbery would be of a death, even if they knew they were going to a robbery or were forced to materially assist.
1
Define participant? Is it any hitch hiker who they might have picked up or is it the people who planned the crime. The issue is intent and knowledge and not who gave you a tide.
"You and your friend plan a robbery" begins one of his examples for why the felony murder rule supposedly should be eliminated when a person is murdered in the course of the robbery. I don't feel sorry for the fellow convicted of murder even if he didn't pull the trigger. Don't plan robberies, which by definition involve the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force. There is a high degree of probability that a person could be killed in a robbery. I feel sorry for the person murdered, and his family.
65
People who don’t plan robberies and who in fact never rob have been sent to jail under this law. This law criminalizes accidental relationships. A hitch hiker should not go to jail for life for the crime that the driver commits while getting gas. But they do.
Why oh why do I find it hard to be sympathetic? Mr. Khan chose his occupation and his associates. I see nothing wrong with holding him accountable for his conscious choices. Isn't this, after all, the very core of criminal justices? TG
35
The subject was part of criminal act which left a victim dead, the victim's family destroyed, and his children's future irrevocably changed: that is a sentence that doesn't end after 16 years. For the subject, who feels aggrieved over his subsequent punishment, there is a simple moral, practical and legal solution –do not participate in criminal acts.
134
There's a natural law lying beyond our civil law that's called "the law of unintended consequences," or more colloquially, "stuff happens." I get it that Khan didn't commit murder and never intended the robbery he willingly participated in to lead to a murder. But all robbers involved in all robberies ought to know this can happen.
That said, a life sentence seems too harsh.
41
It’s all about teamwork.
A death is not beyond the realm of possibility when you commit an armed robbery.
If you get in on that team you’re signing up for the possibilities and that sounds like a valid reason to share responsibility for any resultant deaths.
140
Mr. Khan would have been charged and gone to jail for murder in other English-speaking countries. Yes, "felony murder" has been repealed in most jurisdictions outside the United States. However, the same basic premise remains, at least in England, Scotland, and Ireland, but in modernized form: if you commit a serious crime as a "joint enterprise" with another person and a death results, then you can be charged with murder. Many people overseas are in prison for "joint enterprise" murder - just do a search for the term to see.
151
Beyond this single problem is a larger one in which prosecutors over charge and all with the objective of scaring folks into take a plea. So when a man who sells drugs and possesses weapons is arrested and charged, his girl friend can be charged with conspiracy (or mother as the case may be). The instances of over charging and pressuring the poor are so widespread as to be a scandal but little has happened to change this.
75
@Terry McKenna -- Calculated over charging as threat to compel an innocent person to plead guilty is a very real and serious problem.
However, several people together committing a violent crime in which someone is killed, felony murder, is not that same problem.
38
@Mark Thomason sure. but unlike a gun murder, this was a stabbing death. it is hard to se this as remotely part of the plan. again - a gun death, I am with you. but a stabbing, not so sure.
3
Don't join a group that commits crimes. If a group you're in plans a crime, quit the group and inform the police. If you stay in the group you will be equally liable for the criminal acts of the others even if you did not have the intent for that particular act. Your intent to participate at any level supplies the intent to commit all criminal actions of the group.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
169
@Mel
That does not make it right to sentence someone to pay for someone else’s actions.
I prefer the old saying, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
35
@Mel The point is that he did not do *that* crime. It's one thing to be held accountable if you knowingly assist in a murder even though you did not pull the trigger or stab the victim, but if you are busy stuffing money in a sack and somebody else gets trigger happy--even the trials at Nuremberg made a distinction in regard to culpability.
The law is wrong and needs to be changed so that each person is judged according to justice, not vengeance.
64
@bluewhinge
The law does take that into account. Each defendant is entitled to present evidence that he did not intend the homicide. The common enterprise doctrine raises the presumption that he did so intend.
10
Any law that simplifies a prosecutor's duty to prove mens rea should be held suspect.
This legal approach comports presence (scienter) with the intent to performed a particular criminal act. Like being charged with manslaughter for an auto accident where a car was driven out of inspection but not caused by vehicle failure.
Good justice is expensive, and these laws cheapen justice. A society must be willing to pay the full price for justice or suffer the full cost of injustice.
28
@Tony E
As is not uncommon, the legal reasoning here is unnecessarily complicated. Let's figure out if the felony murder rule deters crime in this country, or by another name in any other country. If it does, then it earns a claim to fairness and justice. If not, then it cannot be considered just except by an Old Testament definition. Our legal system is not supposed to operate simply on the eye-for-an-eye principle, so a shorter sentence would be in order.
2
@Sarah The legal reasoning is very simple: Society is not concerned with who pulled the trigger in these cases; it is concerned with the high risk of a pulled trigger when there is criminal enterprise. The individual that society cares about is the innocent victim of the pulled trigger. That person could be any one of us.
5
@Sarah It is impossible to determine the degree to which a particular piece of legislation deters crime, and there are clearly cases where the felony murder rule is applied in a silly fashion, but if even a single potential robber is deterred from using a weapon then such a law has merit. What if it had been a store full of customers, and they were all killed, and while Mr. Khan didn’t shoot anyone he helped force them to the back room where his accomplice shot them? Would the law be justified then?
2
JK, your suggestion is that the author is struggling with the concept and somewhat confused. The article is about facts and events that are recalled by a real persons experience. Not theories.
You argue for the prosecution, from the position of the likelihood of a successful outcome. Not making an offender accountable for their actions, but rather take as many scalps and gleen as much mileage as one would with what have you.
A truely dispicable practice that's left untold thousands of people, not theories, languishing in prison for decades out of their, actual, lives.
An Aboriginal holidaying in Florida from Australia about 30 years ago hitched a ride and was sitting in the car at a gas station when the police arrived and shot the driver dead as he returned to the vehicle after holding the attendant at gunpoint in an attempted armed robbery.
I defy anyone to say honestly hand on heart that it was fair or honest to prosecute the passenger for murder in that case, but it happened all the same.
56
@HereNow I disagree. Prosecution exists to determine guilt or innocence. Hence, many people are charged and found to be innocent after trial. That is what prosecution and “beyond a reasonable doubt” are all about. In the area of “felony murder,” society is not primarily interested in individual guilt for the death (as in whether or not one pulled the trigger) but rather in the danger to society from criminal enterprises which an individual consciously joins. I note you do not say what ultimately happened to the Australian man.
6
@Lawrence
It was an article in a magazine possibly even the late 70' with comments from his adoptive parents. It caught my attention in that they were white and he was obviously very dark skinned. They had encouraged his travels because Australia in those days was fairly racist and they reasoned that the US would be good for him because of its large black population.
Well weren't they wrong.
He was the last man standing and without any witness to attest to the fact that he was a hitchhiker and did not know the driver, he got skrewed.
It was a very sad piece, they raised him well and the photos they provided showed a young man standing with a straight back and a friendly demeanor.
As far as the Kahn case, he should have been sentenced to life for the aggravated armed robbery that led to a fatality. Then justice would not only be fair but also seen to be fair by all.
1
If these laws are applied in a blanket, formulaic way, then the video has a point -- it could be sensible to reform the law to look at cases more individually to determine what the person knew about his partner-in-crime's intended actions, etc. When you and a friend hatch a plan together to commit a felony (i.e. go mug people (as this man did)) and you "agree" there will be no violence, it seems to me that you still bear some responsibility for what happens if one of you deviates from the plan and kills someone. It should be part of the court's job to determine the degree of culpability in the same way they would for any other crime -- what was your understanding of what was going to happen? When did you find out he had a knife with him? Did you do anything to try to stop him? Etc. The law could add an "aggravated" element to these crimes or an aiding and abetting dimension without sentencing each and every one of these people with first-degree murder.
15
@Elizabeth In New York, there is a statutory defense to felony murder that the person (1) didn't participate in or order the homicide; (2) wasn't armed, (3) didn't know that the accomplice was armed, and (4) didn't know the accomplice was going to engage in conduct that could result in death or serious injury. Moreover, in New York, if you're not the actual killer and you didn't order the murder, you can't be charged with first-degree felony murder, only second-degree.
20
@janeqpublicma
Regarding (3), Adnan Khan states that he and his friend had agreed that there would be no weapons.
3
@midwesterner A court could still raise the question: When did he find out his friend had not kept to that part of the plan? Was it only when the other guy pulled out the knife on their victim? Earlier than that? IF it was not earlier, did he have any time to try to prevent his friend from using the knife? Etc. Anyway, I think the point remains that Courts should take a more individualized view of this, as @janeqpublicma suggests is the case in NY.
1
Perhaps we could broaden the application of the principle of the rule to include corporate officers being held accountable for the illegal acts of their company.
468
@rg That rule already exists; witness the recent conviction of John Kapoor and other executives at the drug company Insys for racketeering. But, like organized crime kingpins, some crafty corporate officers know how to distance themselves from the dirty work done by subordinates, making it difficult for prosecutors to prove the bosses' complicity.
21
@rg
How true. How many corporations do you see serving time in prison?
Meanwhile they are currently given the "freedom of religion" to persecute people with whom the corporate owners take offense, and "freedom of speech" to place blatantly biased advertising in the media to promote the executives' and owner's candidates and positions.
21
@rg
Ha ha ha nice try!
We all know those at the top are mostly immune to prosecution, of any crime they commit or conspire to commit or knowingly encourage, or plan, or pay others to carry out.
Justice is doled out based on wealth, the richer the accused, the less penalty they will pay, in most cases.
Poor people are thrown into the colosseum of our so called justice system, where their lives are torn apart by the lions of the corrupt system, prosecutors making a name for themselves, and others paid to fill our prisons for profit.
23
It could be argued that, without the support of peers abetting a crime, a murder wouldn't have happened. Would a bank robber feel as free to shoot a teller if he didn't know a getaway car was waiting for him? Would a criminal of any kind be as likely to do more, and worse, to his victims, if none of his peers were present? As for the criminals not holding the knife or gun - would they be likely to continue to abet others if no severe consequences were on the table? I think felony murder is a good law, and should be retained.
227
I think a good middle ground would be to hold conspirators liable for crimes they are conspiring to commit. If they planned or aided in murder they should be punished for murder regardless of whether they were the one to carry it out, however if they did not aid the second crime they should get off. Conspiring to get high together is not the same as conspiring to murder. Crime are different and individuals should be held accountable for their own actions.
6
@Diane replace his name with yours and see if you feel the same way.
3
@Diane - I'll argue using the same logic that Adnan did. It was supposed to be a simple robbery, no weapons. Adnan had no idea a knife was brought to the scene. He did not kill anyone. So, why was he sentenced as if he did? Punishment should fit the crime(s), not exceed it. His sentence was reduced to 3 years!! He served 16 years for a 3 year sentence!!
I understand some people think punishment is a deterrent. It's not. If it was, we wouldn't have so many of our citizens in jail. Detterence is the ONLY argument for the felony murder rule. Since that fails, it MUST be abolished here, as it has been in every other country.
Punish those who kill, not those who simply participate. Being involved in crime(s) with murderers does NOT make you a murderer. It never has.
9
It is not the felony-murder rule which is at issue here. That rule provides that homicides committed in the course of a felony are deemed murder, effectively supplying the required intent. The rule that this article grapples with is conspiracy theory, by which all members of a conspiracy are held accountable for the acts of the other conspirators. Thus, the mere getaway driver is equally guilty as the trigger person in a bank robbery. The underlying theory is that enlisting in a criminal operation is a hazardous undertaking. Also, it is analogous to partnership theory and aiding and abetting theory.
217
@Julian Karpoff
So, if a driver gets a ticket for speeding, than all six passangers should get a ticket as well? They may have been urging the driver to hurry, or telling him it’s okay to speed. Hence, all guilty.
These laws get passed by, "law and order," politicans who get votes by being, "tough on crime.” There are no limits to human fear mongering. After 9/11, door locks on cockpit doors solved most of the problem, but instead, an innocent country was invaded, hundreds of thousands killed, a trillion spent.
18
@Julian Karpoff
Felony murder is sufficiently broad in some jurisdictions that conspiracy theory would not be needed:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
@Prant being a passenger in a car is not illegal in and of itself. Committing a robbery on the other hand is. And if a person engages in a felony crime, and in its commission someone dies, even if that was not their intention, they are are still complicit. If you commit such a crime you lose the right to say, "it was an accident" or "it wasn't me".
The person engaged in criminal behavior that is inherently dangerous. So they suffer the ACTUAL consequences, not mere the ONES they intended.
9