The question of whether we should maintain the felony murder doctrine is a complex and debated topic. On one hand, proponents argue that holding someone liable for felony murder, even if they did not intend to kill anyone, is justified because the person willingly engaged in a dangerous felony that resulted in a death. They argue that individuals should be held responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
One justification for holding someone liable for felony murder is the concept of transferred intent. This means that if someone intends to commit a felony and, as a result, someone is killed, their intent to commit the felony can be transferred to the act of causing death. This approach holds individuals accountable for their actions and recognizes that engaging in a dangerous felony creates a high risk of harm.
However, there are valid criticisms of the felony murder doctrine. One concern is that it can lead to unjust outcomes, notably when the individual did not directly cause the death or did not have any intention to cause harm. In specific scenarios, individuals may find themselves held accountable for the actions of others implicated in a serious crime, even if they had no direct involvement in or jurisdiction over those actions. This circumstance can be perceived as inequitable and disproportionate.
If we choose to retain the felony murder doctrine, it should be modified to address these concerns. One possible modification is limiting the application of felony murder to situations where the death was a foreseeable and direct result of the felony. By implementing this approach, we can guarantee that accountability lies solely with those who actively contributed to the fatality. Moreover, we could adapt the doctrine to encompass an element of intent or awareness, implying that the person must have deliberately aimed to inflict harm or been aware that their conduct could lead to a loss of life.