When's Murder, Manslaughter?

Question

It amazes me that Murder can be Manslaughter?
Manslaughter carries a much lower sentence! Just because you didn't mean to kill someone doesn't make it alright does it?
How does it work?

Answer 1

Basically, the law considers two elements of the crime to determine which offence has been comitted:

First of all the "actus reus" -this is the physical part of the crime -i.e. has Man A killed Woman B? If yes, then they consider the second:

This is the "mens rea" -this is the mental element -i.e. did man A intend to kill Woman B? and "intend" can mean that is was reasonable for Man A to forsee that his actions might result in the death of Woman B -i.e. if she dies after he set light to her house, he may claim that he didn't intend to kill her, however, it is reasonably forseeable that she would die as a result, and he would be convicted of murder.

So manslaghter applies where death results from a genuine accident -i.e. where death wasn't reasonably forseeable -or on the grounds of diminished responsibilty (i.e. Man A was a bit mental at the time).

As yousay, killing someone completely by accident doesn't make it alright no, but you wouldn't go unpunished. However, it is entirely different if you kill someone deliberately -this obviously has to be punished more severely.

Answer 2

Definition of murder and culpable homicide.

MURDER: is commited when the accused has acted with the intention of killing the victim or where the accused's conduct has been "wickedly reckless".

CULPABLE HOMICIDE: is committed where the accused has loss of life through wrongful conduct, but where there was no intention to kill or "wicked recklessness".
This may also be considered where in law the accused is found to be of "diminished responsibility" because of some mental illness, or where there was provocation.

"Wicked recklessness" will be inferred from the circumstances of the accused's actions. Normally this will be based on the severity of the injuries and other factors about the nature of the assault.

In some cases, an accused may be charged initially with murder but Crown Counsel may decide that the evidence does not support a murder charge.

The accused will then be charged based on individual circumstances and evidence on a lower charge of CULPABLE HOMICIDE, or lower again of MANSLAUGHTER, and also other low charges such as assault etc. Changes like this can also happen during the trial.

Conclusion

Murder is intentional death.
Culpable Homicide is not intentional death.
Manslaughter is accidental death.

Answer 3

It really depends on the elements of the crime. For instance, you can get a manslaughter charge if you say..accidentally shot a person while hunting and that person died. It's not exactly murder. Or a woman kills her husband because he's been beating her for years. Most likely, that will be a manslaughter charge.

It shouldn't really amaze you. One crime doesn't fit all and murder really isn't murder, as you say. There are crimes in which one should have more leniency than someone who murders for sport.

Answer 4

The Crown Prosecution Service, in order to secure a conviction, will often - almost as a matter of routine - alter a murder charge to one of manslaughter.

This has the unfortunate (or fortunate if you're a politician) effect of making the murder statistics look as though they are getting lower. Manslaughter statistics are never published.

How convenient!

Answer 5

If you can convince a court that you committed accidental murder, you can lower your sentence from life to a couple of years in prison. And there is a sharp difference between a mistake that took a life, which is probably bearing down on the offender with the fact they will spend the rest of their life called a murderer, and one who kills for the fun of it and finds murderer a term of endearment. I don't know whether you're just emotional or what, but there is a difference, a big difference between outright murder and one that was never meant to be.

Answer 6

Murder is when you intend to kill someone.
Manslaughter is when you kill someone but didnt intend to kill them.
For example your in an argument and it begins to get violent, you puss the other person away and they fall banging their head on a sharp object and die. This would be Manslaughter...

Its the same if someone steps out infornt of a car and gets killed. You can be charged for manslaughter, it was an accident and you shouldnt be charged for murder...

Hope it helps

Answer 7

I agree and that's what lawyers get paid to differentiate, to make murdeerers look like they committed manslaughter because manslaughter is unpremeditated, like say you shot somebody in the head, well we all know that is going to kill them don't we, but no, the clever lawyer will make up excuses for you and say you blacked out or the gun went off on its own etc etc and try and get you off on the lesser manslaughter charge.

Answer 8

hello fellow law student! I have that final on Monday. First thing you do is go to the earliest event and evaluate the actus reus and mens rea and determine which acts were lawful. drunk guy: voluntary intoxication impute culpability recklessness, knowing, or purposeful recklessly endangering another person MPC 211.2 also look at terroristic threats 211.3 Steve: assault on drunk guy 211.1 defense of others justification defense 3.05 Steve reasonably believes that force is justified and that it is immediately necessary. It does not matter if it actually is, just from an objective standard a reasonable person in his cricumstances would have believed as he did. Steve is justified because the Drunk guy's act was unlawful Drunk guy: Assault on Steve 211.1 does not get self defense justification defense because Steve was justified. You only get it in response to unlawful force. Paul: manslaughter of steve 210.3 culpability = reckless, Paul was neither practically certain he would kill Steve nor did he intend to kill him. However he should have been aware of a risk of a substantial likleihood that it would have happened. defenses:none, there is no justification for killing Steve, nor one of the traditional excuses (invol tox, de minimis, entrapment, insanity etc.), Paul was reckless Paul attempted murder of drunk guy with shot that hits steve: intentional, does not succeed defenses: defense of others was it immediately necessary from an objective stand point? arguable jury question could go either way was deadly force justified? yes, he had a gun Paul 2nd shot murder or manslaughter culpability? he was intentional and purposeful, but also enraged enraged usually gets you manslaughter but. 210.2(b) reckless under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Firing at both people although first was not intentional is reckless disregard. Charge murder Defense: defense of others again ask was it immediately necessary after Steve was killed? maybe, now no one was going to stop the drunk guy, and Paul was only purposeful and knowing as to killing the drunk guy. Everything hinges on whether Paul was justified in the first shot that hit Steve. I think this is pretty reckless, and therefore unlawful, so this would not have been justified. The subsequent shots on the drunk guy were not in response to him as a threat but in response to killing steve. If you find otherwise, that's fine. If you found that Paul was guilty of murder above for having extreme indifference for human life, then that culpability carries over to the girl and you charge him with aggravated assault under 211.1 (2)(a). If you did not find him with extreme indifference then you can find him reckless in firing 5 shots with a deadly weapon, in a crowded area (he should have know that it was a reasonable likelihood that someone would be injured no defenses as to the girl I would not write the earliers stuff and explain the statutes, just mention them. It is important to characterize whose acts were lawful. Stick to the statutory analysis of Paul's actions and make conclusions for the others. You need those conclusions to do Paul, but the question asks you about Paul.

Answer 9

In the heat of the moment, you can kill someone accidentally. But normally, Murder is premeditated and thought out, and there is the intention to Murder.

Answer 10

With murder in the UK you need to prove malice and forethought.In other words you mean to do it.Malice can be transferred - for instance if you shoot at one person trying to kill them and miss and kill someone else.