Taking Sides: Murder versus Manslaughter?

For me, that element of uncertainty adds a certain frisson.

Then I thought, maybe murderers are all losers. Using the term manslaughter implies the proceedings have got to court, someone has been blamed. I jumped to that conclusion for murder as well and everyone knows that while vice is nice, its best not to get caught.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7318610.stm

18 months, for this prick!

This may be the thread where I ask how the fuck does the charge attempted manslaughter exist? You attempted to accidentally kill someone? WTF?

No, it just means that the person didn't actually die, though death could have been caused through the accidental incident.

couldn't read that. jesus.

Like, if kids are throwing rocks off a bridge, and one smashes through the windscreen of a car, and it swerves off the road, and the driver dies in the horrific crash, then that's manslaughter.

If kids are throwing rocks off a bridge, and one smashes through the windscreen of a car, and it swerves off the road, and the driver miraculously survives the horrific crash, then that's attempted manslaughter.

If it's an accident, how did you attempt it?

xpost sorry, OK I see, that's still kind of stupid.

'potentially avoided manslaughter'

yah it's more about the ridiculousness of 'manslaughter' in the hypothetical case kate lays out.

Sorry, what's ridiculous about that example?

It was based on an actual case - kids were throwing bricks off a motorway bridge, attempting to hit cars. They killed a lorry driver.

That's hardly ridiculous.

The incident in question:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4357146.stm

no, no, i mean the idea that isn't murder is ridiculous, not the example as such.

law = ass etc

For murder, as opposed to manslaughter, you have to prove intent. Those kids were not intending to murder someone. They *were* intending to cause criminal damage, but the death was an accidental result of that criminal damage.

I should have been a lawyer.

yeah i know, im saying that's dumb. they were doing something that was likely going to kill someone, and not very indirectly.

Jane Siegle, Surrey County Council's senior road safety officer, said the pack would "help children understand how heavy an object becomes when it falls from a bridge and how much damage it can cause to a car or driver".

o_O really.

how heavy an object becomes when it falls from a bridge

grr

lol

Kids can be dumb. Their sense of cause and effect isn't totally developped yet. Hey, lots of adults don't think through the consequences of their actions, either, vis a vis the Darwin Awards.

they were doing something that was likely going to kill someone, and not very indirectly.

"hey, he was fat! i thought he would absorb the bullets."

are these kids especially dumb? or is it something to do with gcses getting easier/ too many exams / sats?

to answer the original question of the thread, i think i'd rather be murdered than manslaughtered. The former i to tend imagine as being quicker and less painful than the latter.

Yeah, if someone's gonna kill me, it better be for a damn good reason!

I mean, sure, you're dead either way, but I'd rather there were some kind of forethought put into it! Put in some effort, murderous bastards!

Ahem...

Murder is "a killing of another human with malice aforethought."
- The malice can come from four places: Intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, the felony murder doctrine or the so-called "malignant heart" murderer.
-- The first two don't need to be further explained.
-- The felony murder doctrine states that, if a person dies as a result of your commission of a dangerous or otherwise statutorily-enumerated felony, you can be charged with murder.
-- The "malignant heart" murder is where a person has a reckless disregard for the potential outcomes of their actions - like firing a pistol out of your bedroom window at night. You didn't MEAN to hit that old man in the head, but you did, and you should have realized that it could very easily have happened.

Involuntary Manslaughter is the killing of another under the impetus of uncontrollable passion and without an opportunity to or actual of a "cooling of this passion." A killing in the heat of the moment, in other words, but not every moment qualifies - Catching your wife in bed with another man? Probably. Catching another man stealing your brand new Porsche? No chance. Catching a man molesting or otherwise abusing a young boy? This would make an interesting case to argue.

Voluntary Manslaughter is the killing of another that results as an unintentional, but deadly, action on the part of the accused. The two most common ways are criminal negligence that doesn't rise to the level of the "malignant heart", or a death occurring during the commission of a lesser crime, typically a non-violent felony (ex: selling 65 pounds of weed) or a misdemeanor.

In the states, first degree murder is murder that was premeditated. Anything else is not first degree, and the various states have slightly different ways of terming the various levels, usually having to do with sentencing guidelines or an increased interest in discouraging other criminal behavior.

But, to answer the thread question, if you're going to kill someone, do it like you mean to do it. Murder, all the way.

or actual of a "cooling of this passion."

Should read "or actuality of a "cooling of this passion."

Catching a man molesting or otherwise abusing a young boy? This would make an interesting case to argue.

thread concept.

if momus were still here, i mean.

Is that US law or UK law? (And do they differ?)

I can't actually seem to find out what UK laws are. One article I'm reading says first that they haven't been changed since ("archaic and misleading") 17th Century statutes, but then says they were reviewed in the 1950s?

US law I think, cos I don't think we have degrees of murder in the UK.

No, we don't. But I was just reading some proposal to amend the UK laws to include different degrees of murder.

US Law indeed. I just finished studying for the California Bar Exam.

And is that for real that the UK doesn't have different degrees of murder? Very interesting. A whole lot less wiggle room for the defense bar, that's for certain.

And there are a ton of similarities as, for at least two hundred years, we colonials followed British common law jurisprudence the same as they did in India and other places. We've just had about 200 years of our own case law and statutes to modify it somewhat.

Another example of this is the Miranda warnings provided to a person in custody in the US: You have the right to remain silent, etc., etc. The British legal system provides many of the same protections, but phrases them differently when given to the prisoner.

No, we don't. But I was just reading some proposal to amend the UK laws to include different degrees of murder.

I would be interested in reading that, if you can forward a link. I've never, ever, ever wanted to practice criminal law, but I find it fascinating.

The article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4544238.stm

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/murder.htm

Right. I suppose I should point out that my definitions are technically "common law" definitions, and have been augmented or otherwise changed along similar lines as those reported in those articles.

Does Australian law differ, does anyone know? I knew a lad who was murdered in Australia, but his killer was jailed for manslaughter. The guy claimed self-defence, is that why it would have been manslaughter rather than murder? He went away after having a verbal go at the victim, then came back later and stabbed him, which seems a bit pre-meditated to me.

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/06/08/jack-mccoy-promoted.jpg

MAN 2 10 TO 15