Daniel Vasquez

Phil. 119
Philosophy of Law
Professor
6-10-2015
A Prcis on Liptak's "Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers
In the article, Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers by Adam Liptak, the author
examines a very unique case that makes the American Justice System distinct from all other
government justice systems. Liptak discusses a murder case that involves a young man named
Ryan Holle, who was 20 years old at the time of his crime conviction. He made a costly choice
and was convicted of being an accomplice to the murder of an 18 year old young woman. Liptak
tells us that He was convicted of murder under a distinctively American legal doctrine that
makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like
burglaries, rapes and robberies(Holle). This legal doctrine is presumably important as it helps
to assure that all the people who help in the act of a crime are found guilty of a felony. To
reiterate, the Florida Justice System punished Mr. Holle with life in prison as the Florida courts
ruled that he was equally responsible and liable as the actual killers that directly committed the
crime. In addition, after hearing the facts of the case, I have to disagree with the sentencing that
Mr. Holle received.
Moreover, although I do feel Ryan Holle is guilty of being an accomplice to a murder; his
punishment does not suit his crime. The fact that Mr. Holle had no officially documented
criminal history prior to the events that led to this crime and that he was indirectly involved with
it, should have been two factors for the judge to consider a much less severe sentencing. That
being said, I do agree with the prosecutors who said that his decision to lend his car to friend
was tantamount to murder (Holle). Although his actions helped to actualize a murder,

sentencing Mr. Holle with life in prison is an exaggerated punishment that only the criminals
directly involved in the crime should have received. It can be said that since Mr. Holle was
intoxicated at the time the crime was committee and that he was more than a mile away; he was
not responsible for the choices of his friends. Maybe its the case that he could have very well
have been taken advantage of by his friends who knew that he would lend his car to them, since
he has done it before in the past. I also think that the jury did not use their common sense to find
Mr. Holle guilty of first degree murder. Furthermore, I found it very surprising that the doctrine
the prosecutors used (felony murder rule ) to accuse Mr. Holle as an accomplice to a killing, can
be traced by scholars to English common law but was abolished by Parliament in 1957. I think
that it is time that The United States Justice System should follow England in abolishing this
doctrine. Also, despite what victims right groups think in the U.S, it is not appropriate to hold
people responsible for the acts of others without there being a large amount of evidence that
determines a person indirectly tied to a crime, to be entirely responsible for a crime. The
circumstances that Mr. Holle found himself in deserved some jail time but his sentencing should
have not considered life in prison. Lastly, is not just for Mr. Holle to have been the only one of
the five accused of murdering Jessica Snyder as its obvious most of the guilt lies within the
actual murderers and not the intoxicated person who lent out his car to his inhumane friends.