Arguing The Felony Muder Doctrine

The scope of the felony murder doctrine and proximate cause theory have been questioned over the years in other cases such as People v. Payne, 359 Ill. 246, 194 N.E. 539 (1935). In this case several robbers targeted two brothers for their crime which resulted in gunfire and the death of one of the two brothers. It was unclear whether or not the other brother or one of the robbers had fired the fatal shot. The defendant was then charged with murder under the felony murder doctrine and it was explained that the person who fired the shot was irrelevant to the murder charge. Cases such as these prove that there are uncertainties that are sometimes exhibited and inconclusive standards to where the felony murder doctrine should apply. Many cases have been reversed on the basis of intent. These judges feel that defendants should not be held accountable for the death of a co-conspirator because of his involvement with the felony. These decisions hold up my view that the standards for where the felony murder doctrine should apply are too vague and allow for an overwhelming amount of discretion on the part of the judge. With these loose standards in place there is no bottom line to the felony murder doctrine and therefore most cases involving this statute are decided by the judge it goes before based on his own personal opinions and views on justice. Within the court of appeals Justice Heiple provides his dissenting opinion as follows:.
             "This principle is sound when the death actually results from an action taken by the defendant. When the death is caused by the conduct of a third person, however, the rationale for the felony murder doctrine fails, because the doctrine operates as a rule of intent, not of causation". (Dissenting opinion, Justice Heiple, People v. Lowery, 178 Ill. 2d 462, 227 Ill. Dec. 491, 687 N.E.2d 973 (1997).
             .
             People v. Dekens is a viable case that attacks the felony murder doctrine on the basis of intent and concludes that individuals can not be charged for the crimes committed by another cofelon independently.