How can people innocent of committing a crime be charged and convicted of a crime simply because of association? In California, the law known as the Felony Murder Rule states that each actor involved with a criminal act by which a victim suffers serious bodily injury or death may be charged with that crime regardless of actual participation. This law is undergoing public scrutiny, with a pros side and cons side. The question presented by the cons side asked how a teenager whose only crime is attempting to purchase a drug or commit some other minor offense could be charged with a heinous crime, such as causing serious bodily injury or murder, just because of his or her mere presence at the scene. This law has its roots solidly planted in Old English Law and treats people who are guilty of lesser crimes as murderers if they were present and part of the original intent of the crime when a murder occurs. What is your opinion of the Felony Murder Rule? What modifications would you suggest, if any? Address each side (pros and cons), and state which one you favor and why. If you are in favor of the pros, what is your opinion of the penalty phase upon conviction? Should those who did not commit the murder receive the same penalty? Why, or Why not?