A Bill That Could Redefine Justice:

The Case Against Changing
New York’s Felony Murder Laws

In a world where the line between right and wrong often seems murky, New York’s Assembly is considering a new law that could dramatically shift how the state handles felony murder cases. Introduced by Assembly Member Jackson, the bill proposes that individuals under the age of 25 cannot be charged with felony murder, even if their actions directly lead to a death during the commission of a violent crime. This legislation aims to recognize the developmental stages of youth, but is it really the reform New York needs? Or could it end up diminishing accountability for violent crimes and leaving families of victims without justice?

Currently, New York’s felony murder law holds that if someone dies during the commission of a serious crime, like robbery or kidnapping, all participants can be charged with murder, even if they didn’t directly cause the death. It’s a policy designed to ensure that individuals involved in violent crimes face the consequences of their actions, regardless of whether they pulled the trigger or not. But the new bill seeks to carve out an exception, arguing that individuals under 25 shouldn’t be held liable for felony murder. Critics of this bill argue that age should not be an excuse when it comes to violent crimes. After all, young people are considered adults in many other areas of life—whether it’s voting, serving in the military, or entering contracts. If they are old enough to make such decisions, they should be old enough to face the consequences when they make choices that result in someone’s death.

The idea of changing the felony murder law in New York raises serious concerns about public safety and the integrity of the justice system. By making age a determining factor in felony murder cases, the bill would essentially provide an age-based defense for individuals who, in many cases, are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. A 24-year-old who participates in a robbery where someone dies is still an adult, and their actions should be held to the same standards as anyone else’s. If they’re old enough to commit a violent crime, they should be held accountable for the consequences, no matter their age.

Moreover, the bill would create a dangerous precedent for future offenders, potentially emboldening criminal networks that rely on young recruits to carry out dangerous activities. It could send the wrong message—that younger criminals won’t face the full extent of the law if a death occurs during the commission of a crime. The idea that young people are somehow “too immature” to be held fully accountable for murder could embolden more people to take risks and engage in violent behavior, knowing that the stakes aren’t as high for them as they would be for an older individual.

If this bill passes, it may reshape how we view justice, but at what cost?