ABOLISHING FELONY MURDER: AN EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVE
†
The American Criminal Law Review has not independently reviewed the data and analyses described herein.
Data on file with author.
Ian P. Farrell*
ABSTRACT
The felony-murder rule is a problematic anomaly in American law. The rule
imposes convictions for murder—often first-degree murder—on individuals who
neither killed nor intended for someone to die. Such individuals are consequently
punished with extreme prison sentences, up to and including life without the pos-
sibility of parole.
In addition to imposing harsh punishments on individuals who lack the guilty
mind required by other homicide laws, these extreme sentences contribute to the
problem of mass incarceration. This burden is also not borne equally. The fel-
ony-murder rule has a discriminatory impact on people of color, teens and young
adults, and women.
It should come as no surprise, then, that there is a near-unanimous consensus
among legal scholars—and among the legislatures of other nations—that the fel-
ony-murder rule cannot be morally justified. What is surprising, in light of these
criticisms, is that felony murder remains the law in all but three U.S. jurisdic-
tions.
This Article presents the findings from two original empirical studies that bol-
ster the argument for abolition. The studies involved asking residents of
Colorado and Maryland, respectively, about their knowledge of and moral atti-
tudes towards examples of felony murder. The results were striking. The vast ma-
jority of study participants were unaware of felony murder and the sentences
associated with it. More importantly, almost all study participants reported that
both a first-degree murder conviction and a life sentence were morally unjustified
for the examples of felony murder presented to them. Perhaps most importantly,
most survey participants in both states believed the morally appropriate punish-
ment was less than six years in prison—less than the punishment that would
apply even if the felony-murder rule was abolished.
These findings support abolishing felony murder in two ways. First, the find-
ings undercut both the retributivist and deterrence arguments made by the minor-
ity of scholars who defend felony murder. Second, they demonstrate to legislators
†
* Associate Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. I would like to thank Guyora
Binder, Jay Brown, Asha Brundage-Moore, Bernard Chao, Alan Chen, Julianne Cramer, Brenner Fissell, Rashmi
Goel, Aya Gruber, Tim Holbrook, Elizabeth Jordan, Sam Kamin, Kristen Kennedy, Miriam Kerler, Nancy
Leong, Andrea Lewis Hartung, Kelly Loper, Kevin Lynch, Justin Marceau, Luke McConnell, Dan Meyer,
Govind Persad, Laura Rovner, Laurent Sacharoff, Sarah Schindler, Bruce Smith and Cassandra Weidner for their
attendance at workshops, insights, and research assistance. © 2025, Ian P. Farrell.
25
that abolishing felony murder would reflect the moral judgments of their constitu -
ents across the political spectrum.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
I. JUSTIFICATIONS OF PUNISHMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A. A Brief Summary of Justificatory Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B. Justificatory Theories Applied to Felony Murder . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Rationales for Felony Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2. Criticisms of Felony Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
C. The Relevance of Community Views of Justice and Desert. . . . 38
II. PRIOR STUDIES OF COMMUNITY SENTIMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A. The Robinson and Darley Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Summary Description of the Robinson and Darley Study . . . 41
2. Results and Conclusions Drawn from the Robinson and
Darley Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3. Limitations of the Robinson and Darley Study . . . . . . . . . 43
B. The Finkel Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Summary Description of the Finkel Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2. Results and Conclusions Drawn from the Finkel Study . . . 46
3. Comparing the Finkel Study with the Robinson and Darley
Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4. Limitations of the Finkel Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
III. FELONY MURDER IN COLORADO AND MARYLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A. Felony Murder in Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1. Colorado Felony Murder Before 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2. Felony Sentencing in Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3. Colorado’s Felony-Murder Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
B. Felony Murder in Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
IV. THE COLORADO STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
A. The Colorado Study Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1. The Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
i. Felony-Murder Scenario #1: Vending Machine
Burglary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
ii. Felony-Murder Scenario #2: Home Burglary
Accomplice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
iii. Felony-Murder Scenario #3: Armed Robbery
Accomplice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
iv. Felony-Murder Scenario #4: Armed Robbery Trigger
Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
v. Felony-Murder Scenario #5: Carjacking Bystander 62
vi. Felony-Murder Scenario #6: Carjacking Accomplice 63
vii. Intentional Killing Scenario #1: Adultery . . . . . . . 63
26 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:25
viii. Intentional Killing Scenario #2: Complaining . . . . 64
ix. Intentional Killing Scenario #3: Lying in Wait. . . . 64
2. The Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
B. The Colorado Study Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1. Judgments About Desert—All Felony-Murder Scenarios . . . 65
2. Judgments About Desert—Individual Felony-Murder
Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
i. Comparisons Among the Felony-Murder Scenarios 68
ii. Intentional Killing Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
iii. Comparing Felony Murder with Intentional Killing 73
iv. Comparing Felony Murder with Colorado
Sentencing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3. Judgments About Desert by Democrats and Republicans . . . 76
4. Knowledge of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
V. THE MARYLAND STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
A. The Maryland Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1. The Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
i. Felony-Murder Scenario #1: Burning Down Shed. . . 82
ii. Felony-Murder Scenario #2: Burglary Accomplice . . 82
iii. Felony-Murder Scenario #3: Unarmed Robbery . . . 83
iv. Felony-Murder Scenario #4: Armed Robbery Trigger
Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
v. Felony-Murder Scenario #5: Run Over . . . . . . . . . 83
vi. Felony-Murder Scenario #6: Carjacking Accomplice 84
vii. Intentional Killing Scenarios—Adultery,
Complaining, and Lying in Wait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2. The Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B. The Maryland Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
1. Judgements About Desert—All Felony-Murder Scenarios 85
2. Judgments About Desert—Individual Felony-Murder
Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
i. Comparisons Among the Felony-Murder Scenarios 87
ii. Intentional Killing Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
iii. Comparing Felony Murder with Intentional Killing 90
iv. Comparing Felony-Murder Results with Maryland
Sentencing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3. Judgments About Desert by Democrats and Republicans . 92
4. Comparing the Maryland and Colorado Results . . . . . . . . 95
5. Knowledge of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2025] ABOLISHING FELONY MURDER 27
