Should 'Manslaughter' be scrapped?

[HBK-aholic]

If your friend planned the crime ahead of time, it's murder. You see, most of the world's legal systems distinguish between cold-blooded killings, crimes of passion, and accidental (but still unlawful) deaths. In America, "murder" applies to carefully pre-planned deaths, such as a mafia hit. "Voluntary manslaughter," on the other hand, is what's committed when, for example, a husband catches his wife in bed with a tennis pro and snaps.

The above offers a simplified version of the difference between Murder and manslaughter. Often in cases brought to court, the accused can accept a lesser plea of manslaughter, and therefore a lesser sentence is often given to reflect the crime.

I don't like the idea of this - you've still ended a life, no matter what the circumstances were. But at the same time, I can ee the difference between pre-planned, and a spur of the moment attack. What do you think?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

What exactly are you trying to ask here? If sentencing guidelines should be the same for (what we in the U.S. call) 1st degree (premeditated) murder and 2nd degree (passion) murder? If so, no, I definitely do not believe that they should have the same sentencing guidelines. Everyone will at least once in their life allow both their conscience and reason to give way to emotions and do something that they will later regret. And, unfortunately, sometimes letting your emotions take over will result in murder (I believe you even said that you would kill anyone who harmed the girl that you watch on a daily basis).

 

[HBK-aholic]

What exactly are you trying to ask here? If sentencing guidelines should be the same for (what we in the U.S. call) 1st degree (premeditated) murder and 2nd degree (passion) murder?

Basically, yes. No matter why you're doing it, you've still ended a life. Can we say that there are circumstances where this is more okay, or is it always 100% wrong? What are those circumstances?

If so, no, I definitely do not believe that they should have the same sentencing guidelines. Everyone will at least once in their life allow both their conscience and reason to give way to emotions and do something that they will later regret.

Usually though, most of our mistakes are small things. I have a friend who punches a wall if he gets mad. Murder is on a completely different level.

And, unfortunately, sometimes letting your emotions take over will result in murder (I believe you even said that you would kill anyone who harmed the girl that you watch on a daily basis).

If they killed her, I'd kill them, there's no other way around it. I wouldn't have anything to live for. But even so, in those circumstances should I still be treated as a murderer? I have just ended someones life, regardless of why I did it.

 

[Jonny B]

The real difference is Intention. I believe their should be a distinction between Intention. If someone plots for years to kill someone then goes through with it, they are a worse person than a regular person who was angered by something and went too far. I'm not saying that the person who did not intend to kill is right in what they have done... but the chances are they are much less likely to do it again than someone who plots to kill another person before actually doing it.

The problem is not that there is a distinction, it's that people try to exploit that distinction to get lesser sentences. In that sense, the sense that people are allowed to exploit the system that makes the system wrong on occasion.

 

[Iscariot]

The problem is not that there is a distinction, it's that people try to exploit that distinction to get lesser sentences. In that sense, the sense that people are allowed to exploit the system that makes the system wrong on occasion.

He nailed it here. The intent is clear and to be fair, needed.

Let's say I decide, for hypothetical arguments at the very dark end of the scales stake, to premeditately stalk Becca-who-has-just-moved-and-now-lives-in-America/Texas, break into her house when her parents are out, rape and then murder her. Her dad comes home because he forgot his car keys, catches me with the still dripping knife in my hand, and wrestles it off me and stabs me through the eye, killing me.

So, he deserves the same sentence I deserved should I have gotten away with it but caught by the police? What I did was terrible but at the end of the day, ended in Murder so I get the chair. Becca's dad did only one thing, but under Becca's 'Scrap Manslaughter' idea, he get's chair'd too.

That is wrong. Hence the existance of Manslaughter.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'll agree with both Jonny B and Iscariot here about the need for a distinction in sentencing guidelines. However, I won't go so far as to say that premeditated murder is intentional while passion killing is not. When you kill someone without any plan of doing so beforehand, there can be still be an intent to kill, or, at the very least, an intent to do serious harm.

In response to HBK-aholic: yes, taking someone's life is a serious issue, and it should not be considered only lightly. However, more often than not, in the case of what you call manslaughter, there is the issue of the victim being culpable to some degree. Humans are very emotional creatures. And, out of respect for other people's feelings (and also out of a desire to stay out of trouble), there are some things that I won't do. I would never harm someone else's child or have intercourse with their wife, as I am aware of what they would feel should my actions be uncovered. While, in the aforementioned situations, I would not be provoking them on purpose (i.e., I wouldn't be harming their child or having intercourse with their wife for the sake of provoking them), I would nonetheless be doing something that could have consequences that I am not fully considerate of. Thus, for reasons of liability, I believe that acts of manslaughter should have lighter sentences than acts of premeditated murder.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

If your friend planned the crime ahead of time, it's murder. You see, most of the world's legal systems distinguish between cold-blooded killings, crimes of passion, and accidental (but still unlawful) deaths. In America, "murder" applies to carefully pre-planned deaths, such as a mafia hit. "Voluntary manslaughter," on the other hand, is what's committed when, for example, a husband catches his wife in bed with a tennis pro and snaps.

The above offers a simplified version of the difference between Murder and manslaughter. Often in cases brought to court, the accused can accept a lesser plea of manslaughter, and therefore a lesser sentence is often given to reflect the crime.

I don't like the idea of this - you've still ended a life, no matter what the circumstances were. But at the same time, I can ee the difference between pre-planned, and a spur of the moment attack. What do you think?

I still think there's more to it than all that. Manslaughter can be encompassed by other things as well... You're driving down the road at night and don't see the jaywalker wearing a black shirt. You may have ended a life, but it was totally accidental. Should you be charged as a murderer? Crimes of passion are very delicate and are a case by case subject. People react differently under different emotions. I think a crime of passion should be looked at very delicately. If I came home and caught my wife in bed with some guy, I'd probably snap and kill the guy...or beat him within inches of his miserable little life. But just as quickly as the feeling hit me, It'd be gone. I honestly don't see a right or wrong answer to this question... It's all personal opinion, I guess...

 

[HBK-aholic]

[QUOTE="Bad Ass" Johnny Gunnz;877326]I still think there's more to it than all that. Manslaughter can be encompassed by other things as well... You're driving down the road at night and don't see the jaywalker wearing a black shirt. You may have ended a life, but it was totally accidental. Should you be charged as a murderer?[/QUOTE]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that would come under murder/manslaughter. Isn't there a "Death by dangerous driving" clause in the law? I'm almost sure of it. But if there wasn't, I think this would be different compared to killing someone on the spur of the moment. That being, you never chose to kill someone in this position.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Most of time crime is about bad choices. Most criminals are stuck in a situation and choose the wrong road.

Murder is one of these choices. When hatred boils to a point where murder is considered, one can choose to kill or choose to let it go. One chooses to kill. Sometimes, during the commission of one bad decision, other factors sometimes amplify the damage. Manslaughter is her for this reason. Not all small time criminals deserve a murder charge when a situation gets out of hand.

A drunk driver who kills someone is not a murderer. This is a situation where one makes a horrible decision and the consequences get amplified.

It's not like cold blooded killers get manslaughter. It's reserved for idiots who deserve punishment, but not life or the death penalty.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that would come under murder/manslaughter. Isn't there a "Death by dangerous driving" clause in the law? I'm almost sure of it. But if there wasn't, I think this would be different compared to killing someone on the spur of the moment. That being, you never chose to kill someone in this position.

This is very true...but that's my point. Each type of crime has varying degrees...

1. First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action.
2. Second Degree Murder: Homicide committed by an individual engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
3. Third Degree Murder: Any other murder (e.g. when the intent was not to kill, but to harm the victim)

And the degrees of manslaughter are many...

1. Voluntary manslaughter: Occurs when the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances and/or state of mind. The common example is killing which occurred in passion, or heat of the moment killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding his or her spouse in the arms of another lover, or witnessing an attack against his or her child.

2. Involuntary manslaughter: Sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

3. Recklessness or willful blindness: Is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. For example, a person acts recklessly when he throws a small brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. No intent to kill may be found in the situation, and a resulting death would not be considered murder. However, the conduct is reckless, or criminally negligent, holding the principal guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The person is aware of the risk of injury to others, but willfully disregards it.

4. Vehicular manslaughter: A kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds persons liable for any death which occurs because of criminal negligence, or a violation of traffic safety laws. A common use of the vehicular manslaughter laws involves prosecution for a death caused by driving under the influence (determined by excessive blood alcohol content levels set by individual states), although an independent infraction (such as driving with a suspended driver's license), or negligence, is usually also required.

5. Misdemeanor Manslaughter: In the United States, this is a lesser version of felony murder, and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanor – that is, a violation of law which doesn't rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction for the homicide, if the misdemeanor involved a law designed to protect human life. Many violations of safety laws are infractions, which means a person can be convicted regardless of mens rea.