Citation

Lijtmaer M. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 2008; 98(2): 621-651.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Northwestern University School of Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The felony murder rule has long been the subject of intense criticism by the legal scholar community. Illinois abides by the proximate cause theory of the felony murder rule. The proximate cause theory holds felons accountable for any foreseeable deaths that occur during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. This includes deaths of innocent bystanders caused by third parties, and even, as in two recently decided Illinois Supreme Court cases, the deaths of co-felons at the hands of police officers. Illinois courts have justified using proximate cause, a concept borrowed from tort law, on the grounds that the foreseeability requirement would temper the innate harshness of the felony murder rule. However, in practice, instead of placing a restriction on the felony murder rule, it has been applied expansively, extending liability even to those defendants whose actions appeared attenuated from their co-felon's death. This Comment explores why the proximate cause theory has failed in its purported purpose to limit the felony murder rule, and employs cognitive psychology as a means to explain the rule's expansive application.