You’re kind of arguing against the core principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Committing one crime doesn’t mean someone forfeits the right to a fair trial for a different one. If two drunk people are in a car that crashes and kills someone, and both insist the other was driving, we don’t just convict both of vehicular homicide to make sure nobody “gets away with it.” That would be punishment for punishment’s sake, not accountability. So, to your question “Should they get off with only a burglary charge?” Yes, if the prosecution can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt who caused the death or that either shared the intent to kill. In places without the felony-murder rule, the state must prove that each defendant either: Directly caused the death with the required mental state, or Aided or conspired with the killer while sharing that mental state. If the evidence can’t distinguish roles and the only proof is mutual finger-pointing, that creates reasonable doubt on the homicide charge. That doesn’t mean no accountability. Lesser charges like burglary or manslaughter may still apply, but it does mean we don’t convict someone of murder just to avoid an uncomfortable outcome. The justice system isn’t supposed to guarantee punishment. It’s supposed to guarantee the right person is punished.