Right now at Chowchilla State Prison for Women, there is an inmate; let’s say her name is Tara, who is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. One afternoon in October 1993, Tara and two of her friends were driving around casing liquor stores to hold up.
Tara didn’t shoot anybody, but her co-defendant did. Tara, being just 18 when questioned by police, first said she was waiting in the car when the shooting occurred, but later said she witnessed the shooting. Since Tara was found to have “aided and abetted” armed robbery she was “guilty of murder, under a theory of felony murder.” Further, “It is not required that the defendant be present when the death occurs.” Still further, the “perpetrator,” that is, the shooter, does not have to be convicted of murder in order for the “accomplice” to be convicted of murder. “A person may be guilty of felony murder even if the killing was unintentional, accidental or negligent.” (People v. McDonald (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 16, 22.)
In Tara’s case, her perpetrator was adjudicated as a juvenile and released after three years.
The best police detective I ever knew once told me “There is a real difference between someone who will pull the trigger, and someone who is just there when it goes down. Some people are killers, most are not.”
Tara doing life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a killing she did not commit is unjust. It may be legal, but it is grossly inequitable. This is not to say she did not participate in a crime for which she should be punished, but it is to say that the punishment does not fit the crime. And Tara’s case is not unusual; four boys between the ages of 15 and 18 years are still serving life sentences for first degree murder in a marijuana deal that turned into a brawl in 1995. (see: The Holland Boys)
It is time to do away with the disproportionate cruelty of the Felony Murder Rule. No law on the books makes it easier to convict someone of something they didn’t actually do.