Thank you to "Scott" below for pointing out that felony murder in the military is a strict liability offense (with respect to causing death). Felony murder statutes of this nature are criticized for allowing unintended killings to be punished the same as premeditated murders, and therefore many (I believe most) jurisdictions require some minimum mens rea with respect to the causation of death. See Guyora Binder, Making the Best of Felony Murder, 91 B.U. L. Rev. 403 (2011). The UCMJ felony murder provision thus appears as a harsh outlier. It would permit murder liability for a bank robbery getaway driver who accidentally kills a jaywalker.
Could the President graft on a mens rea? I recognize that the President should not be creating criminal law or departing too much from the statute, and that interpretive matters such as these are the province of CAAF. However, there is the old doctrine of the "hierarchy of rights." United States v. Guess, 48 M.J. 69, 71 (C.A.A.F. 1998) ("Although the President's interpretation of the elements of an offense is not binding on this Court, absent a contrary intention in the Constitution or a statute, this Court should adhere to the Manual's elements of proof. Where the President's narrowing construction is favorable to an accused and is not inconsistent with the language of a statute, “we will not disturb the President's narrowing construction, which is an appropriate Executive branch limitation on the conduct subject to prosecution.”"). The term "hierarchy of rights" has not appeared in a published opinion since this 1998 case, but the doctrine has never been overruled.
The Manual states in the Explanation that "The commission or attempted commission of [a predicate offense] is likely to result in homicide..." 56.c.(5). If "likely" means >50%, though, this is clearly wrong. It is most clearly wrong with respect to burglary. Binder gives a figure of .02% of burglaries resulting in death (p. 458).
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Global MJ Reform
LOC Mil. Law