Felony Murder Rule

Felony murder has been an issue of considerable debate in criminal jurisprudence. Under the felony murder theory, defendants are convicted of murder other than their culpability. Normally, the degree of culpability of a defendant is always determined by the conduct of the accused and his/her state of mind. This paper examines the theoretical objection to felony murder rule as such is the viewpoint of the author.
The theoretical objection to felony murder has been proposed by different scholars basing their argument on the social justice that is achieved from the felony murder rule and the correspondent benefit of the law. Some legislature and courts uphold that such liability acts as a deterrent. This view is not true as studies show that there is no benefit of the felony murder rule in this role. Culprits are convicted of an offense other than their intended conduct.
Felony murder rule as a deterrent theory fails to guide constructive interpretation to ensure justice to both the victim and the defendant. In the case of felony murder, victims often crave for avenging their injuries to restore their status. Such approach gives the victims the vengeance instead of justice. Justice is only served when the intentions of the convict and his or her actions are proven to cause the death. Even though there are many scholars who are in view that felony murder rule should be upheld to act as a deterrent for the law to be obeyed, it is baseless to convict a defendant whose connection to an accidental death is very minimal. For example, a person being accused of felony murder for breaking into a house unarmed but the owner of the house died of a heart attack. In this instance, the defendant has a very minimal connection to the death, and it is not morally right to convict the accused of felony murder.
Some felony murder rules are over-inclusive and do not give both the culprit and the victim justice. Scholars who support it believe that the defendant’s actions independently of his/her intentions are the primary cause of accidental death. Even though it may sound logical, other unforeseen factors may be the cause of the death. There is need for the felony murder rule to include only the circumstances where a defendant is blameworthy of an accidental death. For example, in the case of accidental death during rape when the convict has significant responsibility for the death of the victim even though his intentions might not be to cause death.
Scholars who support the felony murder rule base their arguments on its benefits, but they hardly review the rationality of the rule. Felony murder liability is often not rational to some extent and should be limited in its application. It makes the defendant bear a responsibility that he or she might have little connection with. The purpose of the law should be to ensure justice, not to cause injustice either to the victim or the convict regardless of the age, status and even position in the society.
In conclusion, despite different scholars being in support of the felony murder rule, it is not rational as it does not ensure justice to the defendant. It does not act as a deterrent for the law to be obeyed; it only acts to victimize the convicts. Felony murder rule does not guide constructive interpretation of the law and it needs to be reviewed both in scope and rationality to ensure justice to both the victims and the defendants.

About author Stive Morris is a sociologist, writer at https://writology.com/rewriting rewriting service. All his life he dedicated to scientific researches. In his free time he hangs out with colleagues, visits scientific exhibitions, reads classical books.