In theory, the felony murder doctrine makes sense and seems like it could aid in crime prevention according to choice theory. The felony murder doctrine is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first degree murder even if the intent to kill was not present. In order for the felony murder doctrine to be used, the defendant must have taken part in a dangerous felony that resulted in the death of a person. Even if the defendant did not kill anyone, if a person dies while they are commiting a dangerous felony, the defendant can be charged with first degree murder. Dangerous felonies include burglary, robbery, rape, arson, and kidnapping. The rationale of this rule is that some crimes are so dangerous, society wants to deter individuals …show more content…
With the felony murder rule, a defendant can be convicted of murder without intent or proof of reckless indifference. Only proof that the defendant was involved in a dangerous felony in which a death took place is necessary. Because the felony murder doctrine makes a murder conviction easier, unjust punishments have arisen. An example of this is Ryan Holle’s case. Ryan Holle was charged with first degree murder for lending his car to his roommate who then, along with a group of other men, used it for transportation in a burglary and the homicide of Jessica Snyder. Ryan Holle admits that his roommate told him they were planning to break into Jessica Snyder’s house, but Holle did not take them seriously. Because Holle’s roommate and the other men used his car in the homicide, Holle was charged with first degree murder under the felony murder doctrine. Holle was originally sentenced to life in prison without parole (McGivern). In the constitution, the eighth amendment states that the punishment for a crime must be proportional to the criminal act. Holle’s sentence is unjust and unconstitutional because his punishment was not reasonable compared to his involvement with the murder of Jessica