Why is the punishment for manslaughter so much more leniant than for murder?

Question

Are manslaughter victims any less dead than murder victims?

Do the families of manslaughter victims grieve any less at their death just because their killer didn't intentionally kill them?

Is it that the lives of manslaughter victims just somehow aren't as valuable?

Oscar - I am all too familiar with the way our (lack of) justice system works; I knwo that legally speaking intent matters, but what I'm saying is why should it? W How can you be so legalistic and unsympathetic of manslaughter victims to the point where you think that they should get off on the technicality that the death of their victim was an accident?

Answer 1

I believe that there is nothing on earth that can replace the value of a person's life. It is impossible to equate one life for another. Every life is unique with it's own joy and experiences. You can't replace the loss of a Mona Lisa with another Davinci painting. The Mona Lisa is unique. In this way, there really is no true retribution for those who lost a loved one to murder, manslaughter, or even fate. It is our burden as human beings to learn how to honor and cherish the lives of those we lost, overcome our grief, and move forward with our lives.

The purpose of the law seems more about the prevention and regulation of murder than retribution. In this situation, the law is more about trying to prevent more murders from occurring by setting greater limitations for those with an intent to continue in harmful behavior. Basically, if you are a potential danger, then society will limit your freedom to interact with it either by imprisonment or even death. Those who are harmful unintentionally through careless or irresponsible behavior have a better chance of reforming themselves and rejoining society. Of course, our system of justice and punishment are not perfect. Certainly there are many who go to prison and become worse than when they started, but that's an entirely different issue. The principle of imprisonment remains the same.

Answer 2

~Right on Oscar, as usual.

To child:

Where is Oscar saying anyone should "get off" or that the prosecution failing to prove a critical element of a crime is a technicality. Although dead is dead, homicide comes in all flavors and forms including, but not limited to:

Accidental
Justifiable
Criminally negligent
Reckless
Depraved indifference
Intentional but under influence of extreme emotional disturbance
Intentional (for which premeditation is not required, but which includes premeditation)

Sentences are based on culpability and the level of seriousness of the crime. The seriousness of the crime depends on the seriousness of the conduct of the perpetrator, as determined by the legislature in the criminal law or penal code. As Oscar points out, theft is theft, but petit larceny is far less serious than armed robbery (or grand larceny, as far as that goes). Different degree of crime, different conduct, different elements, thus different sentences. Same holds true for homicide. Anglo-American society has recognized since the establishment of the first courts way back in England that punishments and sentences should be geared to the wrongfulness of the conduct of the accused and not depend on the identity of the victim or the consequences to the victim (or family). It is the accused who is on trial and all that matters or should matter in the determination of guilt is what the defendant did. The sentence is limited to the sentence available to the crime proven as a matter of law. If the defendant did not do everything that is required to constitute murder, but did do all that is required to constitute manslaughter, isn't it better that the accused is convicted of manslaughter and sentenced accordingly rather than to be acquitted outright and go home? The law and hundreds of years of social experience think so, whether you do or not or whether you can understand that or not.

To murder takes a whole lot more than just killing someone. Manslaughter may be an intentional killing, but done while the perpetrator was acting under extreme emotional disturbance. Both manslaughter and murder may be a reckless killing caused by a defendant who created a risk of death and disregarded it. Murder may be an unintentional killing under some other circumstances. In some cases, the lookout in a robbery two blocks from the scene of the crime may be guilty of murder. To understand the differences, you have to know what each of the elements of the crime are. To convict, the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every one of those elements. Anything short of that, the accused is not guilty, not because of a technicality but because the accused simply was not proven to have done the crime. That is basic civics. It is also a very precious and fundamental right in this country.

The law is "legalistic". It is objective. It is based on fact, not feelings. Juries are always instructed by the judge to vote on the basis of the evidence, not on their sympathies. Law and justice don't allow sympathy to be a factor in finding guilt or innocence and that is how it should be. If that ever changes, we are all in big trouble.

If the law says murder requires intent, and a death is caused recklessly or negligently or accidentally, the defendant simply did not commit murder and cannot be and should not be punished for or convicted of that which he did not do. If a killing is intentional but was justifiable, it isn't murder as a matter of law. [I won't confuse you further with the very good and proper reasons that temporary insanity, irresistible
impulse or mental disease or defect are and should be defenses other than to say we don't punish people for being sick or unable to control their actions. We treat them instead, or at least we should.]

It is not that the life of the victim is not important. The life of the victim only matters at all because the life was ended. The question from there, which determines the level of guilt and the sentence, is what did the accused do to end that life, how, and what was the defendant's mental state at the time? The trial is not about the victim. It never has been and never should be. A criminal trial is to redress the wrong committed by the defendant to society. That is way criminal cases are called "The People vs. the Defendant". It is not the victim's case. That is also why victims in cases other than homicides have no rights in the trial and no role to play other than as a witness if the prosecutor decides to call them. Homicide prosecutors always play on jury sympathies by talking about the victim. They do that not because the victim matters where guilt or innocence is concerned but because they are trying to get a conviction by making the jury feel sorry for the victim and to vote guilty because they feel sorry for the family. A lot of defendants are wrongfully convicted because of this.

If you want a trial where the victim is relevant, you need to be in a civil court. Of course, a civil court cannot sentence a defendant.

Why is all this so? Because we live in a country ruled by law, based on justice and overseen by a constitution, and we are entitled to something called "Due Process". A lot of blood has been spilled over the centuries by hundreds of thousands if not millions of good men, women and children to win you that right and to keep it for you. You really should do a little reading into the nature and substance of American jurisprudence, then compare it to other 'justice' systems out there today, and be grateful for what you have because it is the best system on earth, even with all of its flaws. Again, this is basic, elementary civics. If you are beyond third grade, you should have learned this.

Such is the benefit of living in a enlightened, just and civilized society.

Oscar, in his generally frivolous and contrary way, was telling you, I presume, (and I'm sure you'll jump me if I'm wrong Oscar) that you should learn a little about the country in which you live, about your basic fundamental rights and your government and to learn a little about the criminal justice system which has worked so well in the country for more than 200 years, before you condemn it. If you don't understand it, or even know what it is, how can you judge it? If you don't learn about your rights, how will you know when they are taken from you, as they recently were with the Patriot Act?

From his sign-off, it appears Oscar knew you would take offense to his tone, if not his answer. His advice would not be all that bad if worded somewhat more gracefully. You really should learn about things before you shoot from the hip and blow off steam about something you don't understand or haven't tried to learn about. More to the point, if you don't know what your rights are, you are going to lose them. Too many people nowadays don't know and don't care. That is sad and it is disgraceful.

Am I correct in assuming someone close to you was killed and the defendant "got off" with manslaughter? It seems so because, whether you meant it or not, your question conveys the same kind of flip impatient disgust that Oscar's answer did, but your question is also tempered with bitterness. You don't want the law or the criminal justice system changed just because you were unhappy with the outcome of a single case, believe me. Your rights are far more important than your sense of satisfaction.

OK Oscar, jump all over me now.

Answer 3

~It's kinda like why the penalty for petit larceny is so much less than that for armed robbery. Hey, stolen is stolen, right.

If you know nothing of law, the criminal justice system or social values, particularly as regards making the punishment have something to do with the culpability of the accused (oops, sentencing: the convicted) then the way I see it you basically have three options:

1. Pick up a book and learn about the subject before speaking;

2. Shoot your mouth off, prove you know nothing of that on which you speak and let everyone in on your ignorance;

3. Go into politics.

Seems you've gone for option 2. Might I suggest you rethink that decision? You might consider option three, it is ever so much easier than option 1. Come to think of it, there are only two options after all. Given the current level of ignorance and incompetence on the Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, options 2 and 3 are just different sides of the same coin.

Thanks for the thumbs, and here's a finger for you.

Answer 4

Manslaughter lacks the requirement of intent. Murder is an intentional act, manslaughter is not.

Answer 5

In the criminal justice system, part of determining culpability is the mens rae (mental state) of the defendant. Should someone who has malice and ill intent be punished the same as someone who did not? If families want more retribution they can always file a civil tort action as well.

Answer 6

because its accidental or spur of the moment not premeditated and thought out with detail maybe just stupid anger or done something stupid as a result that killed someone like the man was robbing him and he killed him in self defence

Answer 7

if its considered manslaughter, theres usually no intent to kill, therefore it would not be murder.

Answer 8

No, it is a matter of the intent of the killer.

Answer 9

I think it involves "intent"