Answers.com defines felony murder as:

An unlawful homicide that occurs in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, which is considered first degree murder by operation of this doctrine. In many modern statutes, only homicides that occur in the course of certain specified felonies are “felony murders.”

A Supreme Court ruling in May declared that juvenile life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles who committed crimes other than homicide. Already, defense attorneys are using the decision to challenge felony murder doctrine as it applies to juveniles. A recent case filed in York County, Pennsylvania seeks relief for Michael A. Lehman who was 14 when he was sentenced to life in connection with the stabbing death of Kwame Beatty in 1988. Lehman’s attorney has filed a motion arguing for Lehman’s release on the basis that at no time did the state ever allege Lehman carried out the murder.

While the details of the Lehman case are unclear, under Colorado law the rules for charging felony murder include everything from unintended death resulting from arson all the way down to aiding in the immediate flight from a crime scene at which a death occurred.

There are currently at least 12 offenders serving life without parole for felony murders committed as juveniles. While the circumstances of each of these cases is unclear, there are several where the child’s greatest crime was to help a murder suspect leave the scene of the crime. Everyone knows the psychological principles behind ‘fight or flight.’ But dozens of studies show that teens’ decision-making faculties are not fully developed and that full brain maturation does not occur until at least the age of 24.

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, new scientific evidence around brain research and recent challenges to the felony murder doctrine each case where a child simply sought to flee the scene of the crime (with or without the suspect), needs comprehensive and substantive review to determine if the juveniles in question were fully culpable and deserving of a life sentence.

I don’t know exactly how tall John Caudle is, but all anyone has to do is look at a picture to know that he wasn’t simply being sent to bed without dinner. The 15-year-old murder suspect who is on trial for defending himself against severely abusive parents only weighed 97 pounds when he was arrested. But according to prosecutors he killed his parents because he didn’t want to do his chores.

So let’s put the facts in context. A healthy weight for a 15-year-old male who is 5 foot, 1 inch tall is 123 pounds…at the low end.  According to MotherJones.com, Caudle is almost 6 feet tall. At that height, Caudle should have weighed at least 147 pounds. If he were healthy, he might have weighed as much as 187 pounds. The only fact that the jury in Caudle’s trial really needs to be concerned with is that Caudle was being systematically starved.

What enrages me is that had Caudle died of malnutrition or starvation, his parents might have only gotten 16 years for child abuse resulting in death. And yet, if convicted in adult court under direct file provisions, Caudle could get as much as 80 years for defending himself.

All of this leads into a wider problem: According to ChildWelfare.gov, “Colorado [has an] estimated…50 percent to 60 percent of child deaths resulting from abuse or neglect [that] are not recorded” that way. What that means is that Colorado’s prosecutors simply aren’t enforcing child abuse laws.  Maybe if Colorado’s prosecutors were less focused on convicting kids for defending themselves and more focused on tracking down and prosecuting abusive parents, we could eliminate parricide in Colorado.

I guess prosecutors would rather spend millions of taxpayer dollars to incarcerate a kid for life than actually work to protect him and end the cycle of violence.  Apparently, it’s just more politically expedient to nail a kid whose friends can’t or don’t vote than it is to adhere to your own ethical standards.

In a recent article from the Denver Daily News Mr. Ted Tow, the executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council insisted that cases involving juveniles were always “carefully examined” by DA’s prior to determining if they will seek sentencing as an adult.

While it is nice to hear that cases are “carefully examined” by DA’s (and honestly, is that not simply the minimum standard?) examining those cases is not the prerogative of the prosecutor’s office; prosecuting them is. Judges do not have to please political supporters and worry about votes and elections. Judges do not have to fear making the tough, but morally correct, decisions;  DA’s do.  I would not want to place my child at the mercy of a DA–especially one that feigns objectivity when his or her imperative is prosecution.

Dec. 2, 2009 DENVER, Colo. – A recent poll of Colorado voters found that by a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the public believes that judges, not District Attorneys, should be responsible for deciding how to prosecute children. Conducted by national pollsters Ridder Braden, Inc. on November 6, the poll found that more than 65% of Colorado voters favor leaving the decision about how to try juveniles up to a judge.

There are currently hundreds of young men and women serving decades – even life sentences – in Colorado prisons. The decision to try a 14, 15, 16 or 17-year-old as an adult in each case is made by one person — a District Attorney. District Attorneys are not required to follow any guidelines and do not have to document how they made their decision. There are no checks and balances and no hearing before a judge. Prosecutors generally make decisions about whether to “direct file” children within 72 hours .

Opponents of direct file feel this leaves defense teams too little time to gather relevant facts regarding the circumstances surrounding a crime or a young defendant’s state of mind. According to Mary Ellen Johnson, Executive Director of Pendulum Juvenile Justice, the problem is really one of impartiality in the judicial system. “District Attorneys are not impartial judges,” says Johnson. “They often have a political interest in prosecuting kids as adults.”

A growing coalition of advocates, including the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and Youth Transformation Center ask if a system based on direct file is fair. Should the decision to incarcerate kids in the adult system at an annual cost of millions of dollars be left in the hands of one politically elected official?

Colorado taxpayers overwhelmingly say “No” and Johnson agrees. “Our system is supposed to be based on the rule of law. The bottom line is that we need an impartial person charged with protecting the public and the rehabilitation of juveniles to make decisions that will affect kids for the rest of their lives.”

Whether or not legislation will be introduced in 2010, Johnson and other advocates say opposition to direct file will not go away. “The people are behind ending direct file. In 2008, the legislature passed a mild bill softening direct file provisions. Governor Ritter vetoed it. Perhaps it’s time to ask the people to decide.”

This article asks a very serious question and presents three sobering examples of what can happen when the legal system is mislead, misused, and otherwise used as a tool of revenge and not as a blind guarantor of justice.  Are we foolish enough to believe that situations like the ones talked about in this article are too rare to worry about?  Are we foolish enough to believe that DA’s and other prosecutors are always the objective and level headed guardians of the law they are meant to be?

The legal system in America, while it may be miles above the legal system of other, less developed, nations, is still far from perfect.  We still condemn innocent people because of poor detective work, because of fear and prejudice, and most sadly of all, because of ignorance.

It is a sad enough reality that adults in this world are forced to contend with legal systems which, more often than not, are not concerned about justice as much as revenge; the fact that children have to deal with such  systems is unconscionable.  When a child is lost to the faceless, heartless, soulless, Gomorrah of our prison system we as a society have failed that child.  Many children grow up in fear, abuse, poverty, and ignorance.  If their situations drive them to break a law of society should society respond by locking them away, throwing away the key, and simply writing them off as a life wasted before it even began?  Or should society try and solve the real, tough, issues that led to that child’s behavior?