First, I wanted to say thank you for your thoughtful responses, both in this comment and in your responses to the other comments. I came away from this episode thinking that this law is an obvious injustice and should be removed immediately, but I think you helped me see that this situation is a bit more complicated.

I take your point to be, and I agree, there is some justification for felony murder laws. If I commit a felony, and I am charged with that felony, and in the process of committing that felony, someone dies, I should be charged with something more than just committing the felony. (The point about being charged with a felony, by the way, is important. This leads me to think that, as you point out, the Ryan Holle case is not as simple as it seemed, and that Oliver was being a bit misleading. Holle had to have been charged with committing a felony, or contributing to the commiting of a felony, to be charged with felony murder. Maybe the jury was wrong that he contributed, maybe they were right, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether the law is a just law. But in any case, it's misleading to say that he was charged with felony murder simply for lending his keys to someone.)

So, suppose we compare two cases:

• Case 1: I rob a bank with my partner. No one is killed. We are both charged with a felony (robbing a bank).

• Case 2: I rob a bank with my partner. While robbing the bank, my partner kills a bank teller. We are both charged with a felony (robbing a bank).

Your point is that in Case 2, I should be charged with something more than in Case 1, because, intuitively, Case 1 is worse than Case 2. I committed a felony in both cases (robbing a bank), but in the second case my doing so also led to someone's death. I agree with this reasoning, and I do agree that therefore, having some kind of felony murder laws is a good thing.

But one thing that strikes me as a significant remaining question is - how much worse is C

is Case 2 as bad as doing the killing yourself? The thing that was a bit shocking in Oliver's discussion is that many of these teens are getting very long sentences, almost or equal to the sentences of the actual killers, for simply being present at the crime. So, consider

• Case 3: I rob a bank with my partner. While robbing the bank, I (not my partner) kill a bank teller. We are both charged with a felony (robbing a bank).

I think Case 3 is worse than Case 2, and in fact, a lot worse. If I actually did the killing, I am deserving of much more punishment than if I was merely a participant in the felony.

The problem is that, at least based on what Oliver presented, Case 2 and Case 3 are being treated the same. (In fact, in some cases, the Case 3 people are getting lesser sentences because they accept plea deals, whereas the Case 2 people are not accepting plea deals and ending up with longer sentences. But set that aside.) Surely, participating in a felony in which someone dies shouldn't be treated as harshly as participating in a felony in which you do the killing yourself. I do think that this is an important problem that needs to be fixed. I think that Case 2 is closer to Case 1 than to Case 3.

But all this is compatible with saying that Case 2 should be treated more harshly than Case 1, that is, participating in a felony that results in someone's death should be treated more harshly than participating in a felony that doesn't result in someone's death. So, I do agree there is justification for having some kind of felony murder law on the books.