skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 98416 Find in a Library
Title: Dillion Dilemma - Finding Proportionate Felony-Murder Punishments
Journal: California Law Review  Volume:72  Dated:(1984)  Pages:1299-1327
Author(s): T Sudduth
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 29
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: In People v. Dillon, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of California's felony-murder rule, but nonetheless found that the defendant's sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree felony murder constituted 'cruel and unusual punishment.' The dilemma resulting from this decision is discussed.
Abstract: This California Law Review Comment argues that by applying a proportionality analysis to Dillon's first-degree felony-murder sentence the court opened the much criticized felony-murder rule to constitutional attack in most of its applications. Whenever the rule is needed to perform its intended function -- the deterrence of accidental and negligent felony killing -- its application results in unconstitutional penalties. The background and facts of the Dillon case and the plurality opinion are summarized in Part 1. Part 2 examines the preexisting law of felony murder and prior applications of the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. Part 3 argues that the felony-murder rule, which imposes penalties without regard to culpability, is inconsistent with a constitutional requirement that penalties be proportionate to culpability. Consequently, courts can refuse to apply the felony murder rule in many cases on the ground that the penalty is disproportionate to the defendant's conduct. It is concluded that the supreme court should declare the felony-murder rule void because its inherent disproportionality renders it incapable of constitutionally performing its intended function. One hundred and forty eight reference notes are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): California; Capital punishment; Felony murder; Penalty severity rating
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.