Let’s see what the People think of the felony murder rule

In her August 16 guest column, "Courts should uphold the new felony murder law," Kate Chatfield begins by telling us about Anissa. She claims that Anissa was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and asleep in a car -- the column doesn't say whose car -- while Anissa's boyfriend went to commit a robbery and killed someone. Could it be that Anissa was charged with aiding and abetting the robbery, perhaps as the getaway driver, and so she was also charged with the murder under the theory that if you help someone do an act the natural and probable consequence of which could involve a killing, that you too should be held liable?

The column then moves on to Veilia, who was acting as a "look out," though she is not descibed like that. And then on to Vahagn, similarly potrayed in a positive light despite being involved in a crime that results in someone losing their life.

After the set up of these three sympathetic victims -- not the murder victims -- we are told that they were all convicted of murder and sent to prison. But were they convicted by a jury? Did 12 of their peers -- not prosecutors -- actually agree that Anissa and Velia and Vahagn were all guilty of murder? I doubt we have been given all of the salient facts.

Ms. Chatfield says the felony murder law "permitted this draconian outcome whenever an individual agrees to commit a serious crime and a death occurs, even if the individual had no role in the murder, did not intend to kill and did not act with disregard for human life." Really? "Draconian" means excessively harsh or severe. Is that outcome really excessively harsh? What seems excessively harsh is that someone was murdered and that these three had something to do with that. Ms. Chatfield even acknowledges that the law only permits this outcome when a person "agrees to commit a serious crime and death occurs." (Emphasis added.)

Logic and reason support the existence of the felony murder rule. The rule says that defendants are guilty when they "should have been able to predict" that another person could commit a murder. Apparently 12 people from the community decided in each of these cases that the defendant should have been able to predict that their moral companions were doing something that might end up in murder.

But no; let us not do everything we can to prevent murder.

Ms. Chatfield claims that prosecutors "sweep up people and sentence them to life in prison" willy nilly "and now hundreds languish behind bars for murders they did not commit." I don't believe that. I believe that each defendant in these three examples did in fact participate in a murder. They knew or should have known that the murder could happen and should have discouraged it, not participated at all, or reported the possibility to the police. They did no such thing.

So is the felony murder rule unjust, out-of-date, illogical, an anachronism, a barbaric concept? Does it erode the relationship between criminal liability and moral culpability? I think disassociating criminals from the logical, predictable consequences of their antisocial behavior and disregard for human life is the very thing that is unjust and barbaric. Some courts may agree with Ms. Chatfield, but they are just gutlessly riding the crest of this wave of progressive nonsense that negates blameworthiness.

Let's back up just a bit: Someone is willing to commit a crime. They habor the intent to break the law. They are willing to breach our social contract for one reason or another. They want money. They want to hurt someone, but not kill them. They go ahead and break the law. Someone dies. Then they say, "I didn't mean anyone should die," and get off scott free? Anarchy is back in town.

Our Legislature wants to let aiders and abettors of murderors go free. These lawmakers have no doubt supported all the other prudent policy proliferating in this state, like the profoundly intelligent policies of Assembly Bill 109, realignment, Proposition 47, Proposition 57, minors who commit heinous crimes will no longer be prosecuted as adults no matter how deserving, adults can get paroled without serving their full terms, gun enhancements and gang enhancements do not add mandatory time, Proposition 63, juvenile leniency, Mental Health Diversion no matter what crime, ending monetary bail, different standards for immigrant criminals, early release for everyone, and on and on. Penal Code Section 1170 used to say: "The purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment." Today it reads: "The purpose of sentencing is public safety achielved through accountability, rehabilitation, and restorative justice." Whatever that means. There is no accountability. There is no punishment. There is no safety.

I am one of those "prosecutors [who] have challenged SB 1437 in the courts." However, I don't believe I have made any "frivolous arguments that it's unconstitutional." I have made legitimate arguments. I don't think this reckless Legislature should be permitted to undo a law approved of by the people of this state because our lawmakers are so much wiser than everyone else. As a constitutional officer, I am required to uphold the Consitution. Suggesting that any argument against the new law is frivolous is offensive to prosecutors. It is not because we are "faced with the prospect of losing some of [our incredible] power to punish." Ms. Charfield is wrong about that. It's because I believe these criminals should be punished in order to deter others, make the community safer, and protect future victims.

According to Ms. Chatfield, in support of the new law, "[h]undreds of people filled the halls of the Capitol ... Thousands of people sent in letters ... thousands made phone calls. These advocates were not just friends and family members of those who were imprisoned under these draconian lases." (Emphasis added.) There are nearly 40 million people in California. How many of these hundred and thousands were in fact related to criminals? These numbers simply are not that compelling. How about we put it to the people with a ballot initiative? Unlike Prop. 47, which was sold to the public under the false and misleading title, "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" (it had nothing to do with safe neighborhoods or schools), let's use a fair title: The People Who Aid and Abet Anyone Who Commits a Felony During Which Someone Is Killed Should not Be Convicted of Murder for the Natural and Probable Consequences of that Felony Act. Let the People decide on that one.

-- Marc Debbaudt

Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County

President Emeritus of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys

This opinion is my own and not that of the district attorney's office.