#difference between culpable homicide and murder

[kamana-mishra]

Difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide

Students often get confused between culpable homicide and Murder. These two concepts are relatably different. There is a thin line that separates the two of them. This frequently causes problems for advocates and legal professionals when deciding how to present the case because of the slight variance. Culpable homicide and murder concepts are important for law postgraduate and judiciary exams.

We have outlined the differences in this article and provided a clear explanation. Therefore, this article would be your pinnacle if you were aiming for either of these two examinations. So, let’s get started!

Culpable Homicide

The word “culpable” comes from the Latin word “CULPE,” which signifies punishment. The Latin word “HOMO + CIDA,” which means “human being + killing,” is where the term “homicide” originates.

According to Section 299 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, “whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death by such act, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”

Murder

The Germanic word “morth,” which denotes a covert killing, is where the word “murder” started. Murder is only an aggregated form of culpable homicide. Murder is defined as killing a person by another person or a group of people who have the deliberate intent to take the life of the former.

If an offence does not contain one that qualifies as culpable homicide under the IPC definition of “murder,” it does not constitute “murder.” All killings are punishable by law, but not all homicides are murders. Murder is covered in Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Example

A sharp weapon was used by an offender, “X”, on “Y’s” essential organ. The perpetrator is also aware that his actions will result in death. Naturally, Y will die as a result of this damage. This type of death is referred to as “murder.”

On the other hand, Y killed X with a blunt instrument like a stick or stone. The likelihood of causing mortality is lower since injuries are more likely to occur in the strong parts of the body. This type of death is known as a Culpable Homicide.

“Every murder is culpable homicide, but every culpable homicide is not murder.”

The assertion that every murder is a culpable homicide but not every culpable homicide is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, which explains murder.

As was already said, murder is simply an aggravated version of culpable homicide, regarded as the first degree of culpable homicide.

Culpable homicide takes murder’s special characteristics. The concept of the gravity of the purpose serves as the foundation for the distinction between culpable homicide and murder.

Reading the word “likely,” which signifies one probability that it may or may not cause death, in section 299, will reveal the degree of guilt. It is a component that draws attention to the fact that there is uncertainty regarding whether the accused’s alleged deed killed the deceased or not.

While there is no room for ambiguity on the part of the accused in a murder case as defined by section 300 of the IPC, the accused is certain that his act would undoubtedly result in death.

The degree of responsibility makes a significant difference; when the probability of death is great, murder is considered; when it is low, culpable homicide is considered.

Knowing whether the accused’s actions “caused” the victim’s death is crucial for assigning an act under the culpable homicide statute.

Understanding and interpreting the second key distinction between Knowledge and Intention is important. In the case of Basdev v. Pepsi, the Supreme Court considered the distinction between the two and determined that a motive causes a man to form an intention. Understanding the effects of one’s actions is known as knowledge. In many situations, intention and knowledge are interchangeable terms that essentially mean the same thing, and knowledge can be used to infer intention. Although the distinction between knowledge and intention is tenuous, it is clear that they signify different things.

Meaning of beyond reasonable doubt

Real and reasonable doubt is required to prevent the conviction of guilt. The trial judge must rule against the party with the burden of proof if the evidence raises questions in his or her view. The adjudication panel has a duty to acquit the accused if it cannot decide with certainty whether or not the accused is guilty.

Continue reading…

[florencewellch]

omg ok so my criminal law prof was teaching us about like the difference between culpable homicide and murder and asked the class "what is homicide?" and me and this other friend of mine whom i share a braincell with answered "killing of your homies" iujfhgujifujhfujiujhdjuid that professor is chill (and has an amazing ass ngl literally everyone waits for his class just because of the cake he has) so he didnt mind

😂😂😂😂

[freelawbydjure]

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide — Understanding the Key Differences

According to Sir William Blackstone, “When a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.”

When a person deprives someone of his life, he may or may not be liable for murder but in a broader sense, he has committed culpable homicide. So we can say that “All murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders.” In this article, we will discuss the differences between the types of culpable homicides and murder.

Culpable Homicide

The term Homicide, in its broadest sense, is the act of causing the death of another person. It refers to the unlawful killing of a human being, excluding situations where the killing is justified or excused by law. Homicide is a criminal offense that is categorized into different degrees or classifications, such as justifiable homicide, accidental homicide, culpable homicide, and murder depending on the jurisdiction. Culpable homicide is divided into two categories including culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘Culpable Homicide’, it states that “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”

Murder

Murder is a type of homicide that is defined under Section 300 of the IPC, it states that “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-

Secondly — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-

Thirdly — If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-

Fourthly — If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Elements of Murder

The intention of causing death of another person is the primary element of murder.

The intention of causing bodily injury or physical injury that is likely to cause death of another person or result in serious injury to another person.

The same should be done with the knowledge that a particular action would result in the death of another person.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

Also Read: Capital punishment in IndiaConstitutional validity of Death Penalty or Capital punishment in India

[brianrosslawca]

Understanding the Difference Between Murder, Manslaughter, and Infanticide

Under Canadian law, not every killing is a criminal offence. For example, an individual who kills another when acting in lawful self-defence is not guilty of committing a crime. Generally, culpable homicides can be classified as murder, manslaughter, and infanticide. This article only deals with murder and manslaughter: a discussion of infanticide is beyond its scope. The following is for informational purposes and is not legal advice. You should consult with a professional criminal lawyer for legal advice about your matter read more here

[mattywritess]

Manslaughter vs Homicide

When it comes to the criminal justice system, the terms “manslaughter” and “homicide” can be confusing to many people. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, the two are very different offenses with different legal consequences. It is important to understand the differences between them and how they affect criminal defense cases.

What is Manslaughter?

Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of another person without malice. It can be further broken down into two types: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills another in the heat of passion or a sudden quarrel. It is typically considered a less serious offense than other forms of homicide and is typically punished with a lesser sentence. Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing due to negligence or recklessness. It is often referred to as “criminal negligence” and is considered a more serious offense than voluntary manslaughter.

What is Homicide?

Homicide is a broader term than manslaughter and is defined as the killing of one person by another. It encompasses both manslaughter and murder and can be further divided into several types. Murder is the intentional killing of another person with malice aforethought. It is considered the most serious form of homicide and is typically punished with the harshest penalties. Second-degree murder is a less serious offense than first-degree murder and does not involve the premeditation or deliberation required for a first-degree murder charge. Culpable negligence is a form of homicide in which a person shows extreme recklessness in their behavior, resulting in the death of another person. It is considered a more serious offense than manslaughter and may be punishable by a lengthy prison sentence.

Consequences of Manslaughter vs Homicide

The consequences of a manslaughter or homicide conviction vary greatly. Manslaughter is typically punished with a less severe sentence than murder or other forms of homicide. Depending on the circumstances, the punishment for manslaughter can range from probation or a short prison sentence to a long prison sentence or even the death penalty. Murder or other forms of homicide, on the other hand, are typically punished with much harsher penalties. Depending on the severity of the crime, a person convicted of murder may face life in prison or even the death penalty.

Criminal Defense for Manslaughter vs Homicide Cases

When facing a manslaughter or homicide charge, it is important to seek the advice of an experienced criminal defense attorney. A skilled attorney can help you understand the charges you are facing and the potential consequences of a conviction. They can also help you build a strong defense and work with the prosecutor to negotiate a favorable outcome. The Law Office of Patrick McKamey in West Palm Beach has extensive experience defending clients in manslaughter and homicide cases. We can help you understand the charges against you and the potential consequences of a conviction. We also work to build a strong defense and negotiate with the prosecutor to secure the best possible outcome for you. If you or someone you know is facing a manslaughter or homicide charge, it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. The Law Office of Patrick McKamey in West Palm Beach is here to help. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help with your criminal defense case.

[leadindia011]

Kanjhawala Case Difference Between IPC Section 302, 304

kanjhawala case video,kanjhawala cctv footage,kanjhawala girl accident,action on police in kanjhawala case,kanjhawala case eyewitness,kanjhawala girl murder case,Difference Between IPC Section 302,Kanjhawala Case,What is the fault of Anjali's friend Nidhi?,culpable homicide amounting to murder,Lawful and Unlawful Homicide,The story of the Kanjhawala case,how did the murder happen?,Anjali died in Kanjhawala case,law firm in delhi,how to be a good lawyer,leadindia

[news4dzhozhar]

One clammy day in October, the nation’s deputy solicitor general, Eric Feigin, stood in front of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices and spoke about a murder in Waltham. More than a decade ago, on September 11, 2011, three men were brutally slayed in a second-floor apartment: throats slit, heads turned to the right, marijuana dumped on two of the bodies, and $5,000 in cash left behind at the scene. “We’ll never know how or why three drug dealers were killed,” Feigin told the highest court in the land.

Feigin’s statement about the obscure killings in a Boston suburb sits at the crux of the federal government’s argument in a totally different case—the one regarding whether to execute convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. After he received a death sentence following his initial trial in 2015, a panel of three federal appeals judges ruled that Dzhokhar had been denied the right to a vigorous defense because the original judge had precluded the presentation of potentially relevant evidence and testimony related to the Waltham murders, in addition to other issues with his first trial. Unless the government opted to hold Dzhokhar’s sentencing phase of the trial all over again, the appeals judges declared, Dzhokhar’s death sentence would be reduced to life in prison. In a highly unusual move, the government chose neither option and appealed straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

How are the Waltham murders and the marathon murders related? Through Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar’s late brother and co-conspirator in the marathon bombings, who has also been suspected in the Waltham homicides (though the investigation still remains open). Had Dzhokhar’s defense team been able to present evidence related to the Waltham murders at the original trial, Dzhokhar’s lawyers contend, they could have argued that Tamerlan, seven years Dzhokhar’s senior, had become a radicalized Muslim before Dzhokhar, that he’d committed a violent act previously and independently from Dzhokhar, and therefore he could have intimidated his younger brother and must have played a larger role in the marathon bombings. Following this logic, Dzhokhar is still guilty under the law, but arguably less culpable than the government claimed and does not deserve to die.

This so-called “Svengali defense” has worked before: See the DC sniper attacks. In that case, the younger perpetrator was sentenced to life in prison and the elder perpetrator was sentenced to death after the defense team was able to call a witness who watched the elder train the teenager to overcome his fear of shooting human targets. Dzhokhar’s defense attorneys didn’t have many witnesses who could testify about a similar dynamic between the Tsarnaev brothers. What they did have was Tamerlan’s alleged involvement in the Waltham murders—until, that is, they didn’t. That left prosecutors free to argue that Tamerlan was merely a “bossy” older brother and not, as the appellate judges later put it, “a stone-cold killer” who convinced his younger brother to help him.

In Boston, the federal government’s decision to pursue the death penalty for Dzhokhar by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court rather than accept a life sentence was the subject of widespread debate. Death penalty opponents found it disappointing. And odd. After all, the relatively new Biden administration has vowed not to seek any more federal executions, yet it remains hell-bent on pursuing this last one.

At the same time, here in Massachusetts, there is another—less obvious—cost to the government’s dogged pursuit of the death penalty. It arguably gives federal law enforcement a vested interest in not getting to the bottom of the Waltham murders. It also ensures that no one declares the slayings an act of terrorism, lest that muddy the government’s argument for the death penalty for Dzhokhar. Functionally, it seems, Deputy Solicitor General Feigin’s statement to the Supreme Court—that no one will ever know the Waltham killers’ identities—is not so much a fact as a rather self-serving command: Leave this stone unturned.

As a result, the triple homicide in Waltham has been handled almost exclusively by state and local law enforcement. For a decade, the case has wallowed in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, an agency that, from the get-go, has seemed to show little interest in pursuing it aggressively. Throughout it all, the friends and family of the Waltham victims have been left with the painful legacy of so many unanswered questions about what happened to their loved ones. I count myself among those friends.

I was standing in the NECN newsroom when I first heard that police had discovered three corpses in a second-floor apartment on a dead-end street in Waltham. The names of the victims had not yet been released, but I found myself intensely curious about this unusual crime.

At the time, I was a freelance, overnight production assistant fresh out of college, but I desperately wanted a shot at working as a reporter. I thought this story could be my big break. Several days later, authorities sent out a press release revealing the names of the deceased: Brendan Mess, 25, Raphael Teken, 37, and Erik Weissman, 31.

Erik had been my friend. I’d met him four years earlier, when I was 19, through some childhood friends. We got high together, I occasionally bought weed from him, and we quickly became close. He had a gentle soul, a quick mind, and a kind heart. Together, we would go on long drives and have endless conversations, deep ones. He believed in me, telling me I would be a writer long before I believed it myself.

Erik and the other two victims regularly sold marijuana. They believed that cannabis could heal, and dreamed of a time when it would become legal. But it wasn’t. I told Erik that my father was a criminal defense attorney and that I knew things often ended badly for people in his line of business. When he later got busted on a drug charge, my father assumed his defense.

In the weeks of shock and grief after learning he was dead, I lost my taste for the crime beat and quit. I told my news director I thought there was more to the story, but I wasn’t a reporter and my personal relationship to the victim precluded me from pursuing the case in a traditional newsroom. Plus, I figured, investigators would do everything they could to solve the gruesome murder anyway.

I was wrong. Even though the Middlesex County DA announced that the assailants were most likely known to the decedents—there was no sign of forced entry to the apartment—investigators did not appear eager to interview the victims’ inner circle of friends, which included Tamerlan, those friends tell me. Not even when police investigators later learned about Tamerlan’s conspicuous absence from Mess’s funeral did they try to talk to him, the New York Times reported.

It wasn’t just Tamerlan, though. Investigators seemed largely uninterested in following up on leads, according to dozens of interviews with individuals close to the case including friends, family, neighbors, and members of law enforcement. Shortly after the Waltham murders, law enforcement officials told the Weissman family that they figured someone would tell them what happened on the night of the murder when they needed a plea bargain for another crime. The message received by the Weissman family was that until then investigators would wait.

That break came 19 months later, but not in a way anyone had expected. Two pressure-cooker bombs were placed near the Boston Marathon finish line, and Tamerlan was responsible.

About one month after the marathon bombings, an FBI agent, along with two Massachusetts state troopers, traveled to Florida to interview Ibragim Todashev, an associate of Tamerlan who trained at the same gym as Tamerlan and Mess. During questioning, Todashev reportedly confessed on tape to going with Tamerlan to the Waltham apartment, where they robbed the victims of their “drug monies.” Todashev said he was unaware of Tamerlan’s plan to kill anyone, which he explained Tamerlan said was necessary to eliminate witnesses. The feds never got any more information out of Todashev. During the interview, he was shot and killed by the FBI agent in an act that was later ruled self-defense.

Despite Todashev’s confession, law enforcement has yet to officially pin the Waltham murders on him or Tamerlan. Instead, government attorneys have discredited Todashev’s statement, calling him “unhinged” and saying his confession is unreliable due to discrepancies between what he said and what officers found at the crime scene. These actions have served to bolster their argument for capital punishment and keep the Waltham murders out of the Boston Marathon bombings trial.

Not long after Todashev was killed, the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office reassumed sole jurisdiction of the Waltham murders, and according to the government’s attorneys, barred federal investigators from accessing state evidence. A statement from the FBI confirmed that the bureau classifies the Waltham murders “as a state murder case under the jurisdiction of the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office.” Since then, the office has failed to publicly release any more information about the case. After Todashev was killed, I quit my job, flew to Florida, and began investigating the case as a freelance journalist. I haven’t stopped since.

Key to the FBI’s ability to stay out of the Waltham investigations is the agency’s contention that the murders were not an act of terrorism, something that would put the case squarely in its jurisdiction. Government attorneys later took this same position leading up to the original marathon bombings trial, furthering their bid for the death penalty. Arguing that the Waltham killings were not terrorism-related fit their narrative that the brothers had been radicalized around the same time on their own accords and shared equal blame for the marathon bombings.

There are many reasons, however, to think that the Waltham murders were, in fact, a terrorist act, which the FBI defines as a “violent or criminal act committed…to further ideological goals.” One thing we know about Tamerlan is that before he became a terrorist, he was an anti-Semite. People who were close to Tamerlan say that in the late aughts he grew increasingly vocal about his anti-Semitic beliefs. According to a Reuters story, in 2011 Russian intelligence recorded a conversation between Tamerlan and his mother during which they discussed Israel, Palestine, and the possibility of Tamerlan traveling there to wage jihad. Waltham victims Weissman and Teken were not only Jewish, but Israeli.

If Tamerlan was behind the criminal acts in Waltham, the killings were likely driven, at least in part, by his anti-Semitic views. Tamerlan had been close friends with Mess and had disputes with him and Teken about Israel.

It’s also tough to brush aside the date of the murders, the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Was it an echo, or an homage even, to the most monumental terrorist event in our nation’s history? And what about Tamerlan’s six-month trip to Dagestan, which he undertook four months after the Waltham killings with the goal of meeting with terrorist leaders?

In addition to barring evidence about Tamerlan’s potential involvement in the Waltham murders during the original marathon bombings trial, the court also prohibited Dzhokhar’s defense team from introducing Tamerlan’s radical-leaning reading list: several conspiracy theory publications, such as Sovereign magazine, which, in the lead-up to the murders and the bombings, published stories suggesting Israel was responsible for 9/11 and that domestic terrorism was the “required response to tyranny.” Hearing transcripts show that in the weeks surrounding the murder, Tamerlan was reading texts in which Al Qaeda organizer Anwar al-Awlaki justified stealing from infidels to fund jihad. There were also messages in which Tamerlan and Todashev conferred with each other about religiously motivated violence and why that may or may not be justified. This evidence was blocked. Dzhokhar’s comment, allegedly relayed to a friend in the months leading up to the bombings, that his elder brother had carried out “jihad in Waltham,” was also not allowed to be heard in court.

Despite this evidence, Feigin argued that the Waltham murders were “very differently motivated” from the marathon bombings and were undertaken “in order to cover up who had committed the robbery of three drug dealers.” To help support this argument, government lawyers have cited part of Todashev’s confession—the same confession they have called unreliable—in which Todashev said the murders were not planned, but rather Tamerlan’s last-minute idea to ensure they could not be identified. That is hard to buy. Are we to believe that Tamerlan only realized after binding, torturing, and robbing a close friend that he would most certainly be recognized, and then decided in that instant to kill the robbery victims?

The apparent desire of government prosecutors to keep the Waltham case out of the bombings trial has made them come off like Tamerlan’s defense team for the Waltham case. They have worked hard to cast doubt on evidence of his guilt, as well as on any indication that the Waltham murders might be terrorism-related.

Meanwhile, the Middlesex County DA’s Office arguably has its own interest in keeping the homicide case open and unsolved. After all, if investigators had been able to conclude that Tamerlan was involved, they would have been admitting to having let the Boston Marathon bombers slip through their fingers. The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement that it is “actively investigating the Waltham triple homicide, including recently interviewing a material witness and identifying a new potential source of physical evidence.” It also admitted that Tamerlan and Todashev had been persons of interest in the case. Even if that evidence leads to a breakthrough, it will be too late to change the course of Dzhokhar’s death penalty case.

If the crime in Waltham was not an act of terrorism, then its victims, including my friend Erik, cannot be considered victims of terrorism. In fact, they are rarely referred to as any kind of victims at all. Instead Feigin has framed the people killed in Waltham as “drug dealers” and the bombing victims as “innocents.”

Labeling the victims as drug dealers arguably serves a couple of key purposes for the government. It helps to reinforce the lower court’s decision to preclude the Waltham murders from the marathon bombings trial. And it diminishes the significance of the Waltham murders. Three people died at the Boston Marathon finish line, including a child. Hundreds were injured and mutilated, and then an MIT police officer was killed days later. Still, three people were murdered in Waltham, too.

Forget an appeal or a Supreme Court case, the families of the men slain in Waltham have not seen a conviction or so much as an official statement confirming or denying allegations about Tamerlan’s role in the deaths.

But this isn’t about sympathy. It’s about safety. Had police vigorously pursued the culprits, it is quite possible that there would be no need for a U.S. Supreme Court hearing, appellate court ruling, or a trial. There might not have been any Boston Marathon bombings. Tamerlan might be behind bars on murder charges, and maybe no one would have heard of his younger brother Dzhokhar.

If the goal is to seek justice and closure in the wake of the bombings—let alone review failures of security—shouldn’t we be curious about what happened in Waltham? Can we truly account for this horrific attack without reconciling what happened that night on 9/11/11? Arguments to ignore this case may be strategically designed to ensure that Dzhokhar is put to death, but are they worth the cost? Ultimately that is the question the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve: How much justice can we afford to lose in the act of pursuing it?

[nancythedrew]

Nancy Drew Lawyer Time: Renee’s Culpability

Some people expressed interest in me using my almost 1 full year of law school knowledge to try to analyze some ND game things from a legal perspective. Obviously, take everything I say with a grain of salt because I am not a lawyer and this is addressing a not real set of facts. This is also for my own benefit because it is much more fun to write about ND games when prepping for an exam than it is using facts from law school study materials. 

So without further ado, I attempt to answer the question: Was Nancy correct in saying “While [Renee] may not have meant to cause Bruno’s death, she certainly meant to cause mine when she sealed me up in that crypt”?

OK just some ground rules here: I’m gonna be addressing this based on the Model Penal Code(MPC) which is basically like an advisory text for lawmakers to follow when it comes to creating criminal codes by state. Most states have adopted the MPC in some fashion; I have no idea if Louisiana has or to what degree but for the sake of argument let’s just address this based on the MPC/common law(case rulings)/federal law.

In general, to show that someone is guilty of a crime it must be demonstrated that they possessed both actus reus(action or conduct) and mens rea(guilty mind). Here, we’re looking at two different actions that Renee engaged in: giving Bruno the fake letter saying the crystal skull was a fake and leaving Nancy in the crypt. We’ll address the mens rea for each of those separately as well.

Bruno’s Death - Actus reus

Actus reus is usually broken down into four main elements: voluntary act, social harm, factual causation, and legal causation.

Voluntary act: This threshold is pretty easy to meet. This basically asks whether what the person did was actually something within their control. MPC § 2.01(1) In other words, you’re only gonna not meet this standard if you like had a convulsion or seizure and literally could not control your body’s actions. Here, there is no indication that Renee did not actually will herself to write up the fake letter and give it to Bruno, so she meets the voluntary act requirement.

Social harm: The social harm element looks to the negative consequences that the law is intending to prevent. In this case, we’re talking about the death of a human which laws against homicide are intended to prevent. Here, someone died so the social harm component of a homicide charge has been met.

Factual causation: Under factual causation, we use what is called the “But-For Test” which asks “But for X conduct, would this social harm have come about when it did?” MPC § 2.03(1)(a-b).  Essentially, if the defendant hadn’t done what they did, would we still have the same end result? Here, but for Renee creating the fake letter and giving it to Bruno he probably would not have died when he did. Renee could maybe try to argue that at his age a heart attack was likely to happen at pretty much anytime in his life and the timing of the letter and subsequence heart attack were mere coincidence, but I think it would be pretty hard to prove that Renee’s letter didn’t at least somewhat contribute to the heart attack that killed him. Therefore, there is likely factual causation between Renee’s conduct and the social harm.

Legal causation: Legal causation asks whether actual result is not too remote or accidental to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of the offense. Basically, even if someone technically was a link in the chain that “caused” a social harm, is what they did socially abhorrent enough that we actually want to punish them for it? In this case, Renee could -try- to argue that Bruno’s medical conditions and psychological dependence on the perceived protection he got from the skull were an intervening force that broke the chain of legal causation enough that Renee shouldn’t be held responsible for his death. However, criminal law applies what we also have in tort(personal injury) law which is known as the “Eggshell Plaintiff Rule” or “You take the plaintiff as you find him.” If a plaintiff/victim has a pre-existing medical condition that makes them more sensitive or susceptible to injury, even if the defendant could not have foreseen the condition, the existence of such a condition is not enough to break the chain of causation and absolve the defendant of liability. Therefore, Renee’s conduct will still likely be a legal cause of Bruno’s death.

Bruno’s Death - Mens rea

Mmkay here is where things get dicey. The MPC has four main mental state categories to determine how culpable someone’s mental state is. From most culpable to least culpable: Purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. Based on what your mental state was when you killed someone will determine the level of homicide you committed. I will address each accordingly.

Purposely - Intentional homicide:

A person is guilty of committing a crime knowingly if “the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.” MPC § 2.02(2)(a). Basically, was Bruno’s death(the result) Renee’s conscious object to cause such a result? Probably not. Assuming we take her at her word that she truly just hoped he’d give her the skull after reading the letter, she probably did not meet the requirement for a purposeful homicide.

Knowingly - Intentional homicide 

A person is guilty of committing a crime purposely “if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.” MPC § 2.02(b), For pretty much the same reasons as above, it’s gonna be pretty hard to show that Renee was practically certain that Bruno would literally die as a result of the letter, so her conduct probably does not fall within what is required for a knowing homicide. 

Recklessly - Involuntary Manslaughter 

A person is guilty of committing a crime recklessly if “he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.”  MPC § 2.02(2)(c). Again, here, if we take Renee at her word that she truly did not think her conduct posed a risk to Bruno’s life, it’s gonna be fairly difficult to prove a reckless homicide unless there’s maybe facts that suggest Renee knew about Bruno’s health conditions and knew how the letter would affect those. But given the information we have, she probably did not commit reckless homicide.

Negligently - Negligent homicide

A person is guilty of committing a crime negligently if “he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.” This is where things could go either way. As distinguished from a reckless mental state where the defendant must have actually disregarded a risk, here it just needs to be demonstrated that Renee should have been aware of the risk giving the fake letter to Bruno posed. The state could probably argue that Renee, being his housekeeper, should have been aware of his medical condition and his emotional dependence on the skull and known that the letter would really mess him up. On the other hand, Renee could probably easily argue that at most she would have anticipated that Bruno would’ve been emotionally distraught but that there was not a substantial risk of him literally having a heart attack and dying.

On balance, the issue of Bruno’s death is likely going to hinge on how much the jury believes the resulting heart attack from the letter was a high enough risk that Renee should have been aware of it. My guess is if the state couples both the Bruno and Nancy(we’ll get to that in a second) situations into one case, the jury will likely be sympathetic to Nancy’s testimony and therefore be more willing to find Renee guilty of other crimes.

Nancy’s Almost-Death

Woo hoo let’s talk about inchoate crimes, or essentially crimes that have not fully been realized. In this case, the state will probably argue that Renee attempted a homicide by leaving Nancy locked up in that crypt. Demonstrating an “attempt” has a slightly different mental state and action requirement, since it isn’t a fully completed crime. Here’s the full MPC definition of it and I’ll go through each possible element accordingly:

MPC § 5.01 “(1) Definition of Attempt 

A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he:

(a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or

(b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with

the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or

(c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”

Let’s start with that first mental state requirement: “acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime.” Here, we need to specify exactly what kind of homicide we’re seeing if Renee attempted. The MPC does not allow people to be held liable for attempted negligent or reckless mens rea crimes(which makes sense. How do you “attempt to” be negligent at something), so it’s gonna have to fall into purposeful or knowing. Here, it seems like it was Renee’s conscious object to cause the result of Nancy sitting in that crypt until she died. Therefore, we’re gonna be looking to see if Renee attempted to commit intentional homicide aka murder. 

I was going to address the actus reus elements individually, but the core question all three of them pretty must ask is had the circumstances been as the defendant believed would the social harm have occured? In this case, Nancy was able to escape from the crypt, but Renee did not have knowledge that there was a way to get out of the crypt. Therefore, had the facts been as Renee believed, with Nancy having no way to escape, Renee would have been able to bring about the result(Nancy’s death) that she wanted. Thus, Renee likely met the actus reus requirements of attempted murder.

A quick note on omission: It’s worth nothing that Renee didn’t technically “do” anything. She caught the skull like Nancy wanted her too and then just left; it’s not like she actively poisoned or stabbed someone. But, if you’ll notice, in § 5.01(b-c) it mentions both purposely doing an action as well as “omits to do anything with the purpose of….” Because Renee failed to help Nancy out of the crypt with the purpose of leaving Nancy there to die, she would have still met the actus reus requirement even without “doing” something. Generally, criminal law doesn’t like to hold people criminally responsible for not doing things(though there are some situations where a duty arises and an omission could make you liable), but here the elements requirement the mental state of “purposely” engaging in an omission to lead to a certain result. In other words, you’re only going to be liable for an omission if it was your conscious object that such an omission would lead to a social harm.

So, to wrap up, Renee will probably be found guilty of attempted murder for leaving Nancy in that crypt because her actions and comments (“Bye now, Nancy”) suggest it was her concious object to leave Nancy there to die. Bruno’s death might leave Renee liable for negligent homicide, but it’s going to really depend on how much the jury thinks it would have been reasonable for Renee to have thought Bruno could’ve died based on the letter.

In summary, was Nancy correct in saying, “While [Renee] may not have meant to cause Bruno’s death, she certainly meant to cause mine when she sealed me up in that crypt”? As the Mythbusters would say….plausible. 

That was super long, but was actually very helpful for me prepping for my finals. If ya’ll have any other ND-related law analyses you’d be interest in me trying to do(if they relate to Criminal or Property law even better for my sake, but I also could do Contracts or Torts) please shoot them my way! Again, I am not a lawyer, but I have learned some things about the law and thought it’d be interesting to apply them to a medium I love. 

[mewtonian-physics]

i’m going to lecture you about the law and you will like it(or not, up to you)

okay so first of all it is not just important to know the law if you’re like me and you want to be a lawyer, or a judge, or whatever. literally everyone should know at least the basics of the law because you’re living under it and you ought to know what it is you’re living under. (if you take this as a ‘penny agrees with all laws’ then you had better stretch before you reach that far because otherwise you’re going to pull a muscle. laws as a concept are not inherently good or bad. there are good laws and there are bad laws.)

the law intersects with every part of our lives, so it is not only prudent but often vital to know as much as you can about it. it’s better to know more than you need to than to find yourself in a rough spot with no knowledge to fall back on.

anyway, into the actual lecture. note that i am merely a student of the law so while i am fairly confident in what i am about to say you should ALWAYS do your own research. be proactive! these things could become quite helpful in the future.

furthermore, note that i am an american citizen and as such my knowledge is based on the american legal system. if you are not in america your legal system may be entirely different. (and if so, i would love to hear about it!)

there are several overarching ‘types’ of law, but as my interest and therefore much of my knowledge lies in criminal law, i will be talking about that.

i’m guessing i don’t have to tell you what crime is. if you don’t know, then i think you have a lot bigger problems on your hands.

now the other half of criminal law is, well, punishment. but that takes a lot of forms.

first, you have to be deemed culpable. what does culpability mean? well, the word culpable means ‘deserving of moral blame or punishment; at fault; having acted with indifference to consequences and to the rights of others’. 

take for example the difference between someone who causes the death of a friend due to unknowingly giving them food they’re severely allergic to, someone who kills another while drunk driving, and someone who poisons their spouse to cash in on life insurance. in all three of these cases, someone has died due to the actions of someone else. but who is culpable?

this is where the concept of ‘mens rea’ comes in. ‘mens rea’ is latin and means, in short, ‘a guilty state of mind’. 

criminal offenses are usually defined with reference to one of four criminal states of mind: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and gross (criminal) negligence. 

in the first example, the person who caused the death of their friend did not intend to do so. they had no knowledge that their friend was allergic to the food they were given. they weren’t acting recklessly, and they weren’t negligent. they are not culpable.

in the second example, the drunk driver did not intend to kill anyone. but most everyone knows it’s dangerous to drink and drive. they were acting recklessly and negligently by driving inebriated. they are culpable; probably facing negligent homicide.

in the third example, the spouse’s death was intentional, and planned as well. that’s where the most culpability comes in. the killer would face first degree murder charges. (you can read more about murder and manslaughter charges here.)

of course, one also has to take into question responsibility. this is one of the reasons why juvenile offenders have much lesser sentences than they would if they were an adult; society recognizes that they are young and their brains are not as developed as an adult’s would be. however, in the case of particular crimes such as murder, a juvenile offender can be tried as an adult. it all comes down to specific cases.

‘but penny!’ you might say. ‘two adults might not get the same sentences either!’

well, there’s a reason for that, as well: depravity.

say that one person shoots another in the head, point blank. their death was most likely very quick. 

on the other hand, think of some of the most horrible murder cases you know of. the ones that make you cringe and maybe even cry just because of how awful they are. (if you don’t know any that are that bad, good for you. seriously.) 

one of these crimes is considered far worse than the other--and for fairly obvious reasons. the person who committed the latter crime will likely get a worse sentence than the person who committed the former.

there are other reasons why people might have very different sentences, but most of them don’t fall under the legal system. by that i mean, there is no law that states that a person of color gets a higher sentence than a white person. it’s the result of societal views and prejudices. because i am talking about the law itself, i will not get into them here. still, it is important to know that such things exist and occur.

of course, this all assumes that the person in question is even convicted! in most cases, this will be decided by a jury--a group of (typically) twelve people, otherwise unrelated to the case, who listen to the case presented in court and decide whether or not the defendant(person accused of the crime) is guilty or innocent.

now, there are two important elements that determine guilt: mens rea, which we’ve already gone over, and ‘actus reus’. that’s latin again, meaning ‘the criminal act’: the physical act that is declared a crime. in murder, the actus reus is homicide; in burglary, it’s unlawful entering with criminal intent; et cetera, et cetera. actus reus is a pretty simple concept: it’s the thing that the law says not to do. and either you did it, or you didn’t. 

further note: if you intend to harm one person but in the process make a mistake and harm someone else instead, you are still culpable. you had intent to harm and you committed harm. WHO the victim is is actually pretty irrelevant(though you’ll likely get a much higher sentence if you hurt, say, a child, than you would if you hurt an adult).

and that’s a very basic explanation of the elements that go into determining guilt. i may talk more about further procedures later...

[purelylegal-blog]

Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder.

Homicide means the killing of a human being by a human being. Homicide is the highest order of bodily injury that can be inflicted on a human body. Since it is considered as a most serious harm which may be inflicted upon another person, it bags maximum punishment. Under Indian law and US law imposes death penalty and in English law proposes mandatory life imprisonment. However in every case of homicide the culprit is not culpable. There may be cases where a law will not punish a man for committing homicide. For example, death caused in exercise of self defence, by reason of mistake of fact, bonafide execution of law etc. Likewise, if death is caused without any criminal intent or by an accident or misfortune, the man will be excused from criminal liability. On the other hand if the killing is not justified either by law or facts the accused will be prosecuted and punished under law. Hence homicide may be lawful or unlawful.

Lawful homicide may be classified as excusable and justifiable homicide. Unlawful homicide may be divided into three categories, culpable homicide, cause death by rash and negligent driving and suicide. Under Indian law culpable homicide is classified into two; culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Under English law there are several homicide offences: murder, manslaughter ( both voluntary and involuntary) infanticide, death by rash driving and suicide.

Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder:

According to Sir James Stephen, the definition of culpable homicide and murder are the weakest part of the code, as they are defined in forms closely resembling each other and times it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two as the causing of death is common to both. However, the difference between culpable homicides is real though very fine and based upon a very subtle distinction of the intention and knowledge involved in these crimes. The true difference lies in the degree, there being the greater intention or knowledge of the fatal consequences in the one case than the other.

The difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder can be seen in the following Cases:

Case Law 1: Reg. vs  Govinda 1876 ILR Bom 342.

The distinction between sections 299 and 300 was made clear by Melvil J. in Reg. vs  Govinda [1876 ILR Bom 342]. In this case the accused had knocked his wife down, put one knee on her chest, and struck her two or three violent blows on the face with the closed fist, producing extraversion of blood on the brain and she died in consequence, either on the spot, or very shortly afterwards, there being no intention to cause death and the bodily injury not being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Case Law 2: Kusa Majhi v State of Orissa 1985 Cr. L.j 1460

The deceased admonished her own son for not going for fishing with the co-villagers. Infuriated on this the accused, the son brought an axe and dealt with the blows on her shoulder and she died. There was no pre plan of the offence. The blows were not on the neck or head region. The accused dealt blows likely to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death and he dealt blows on the spur of moment and anger. Therefore it was held to be a case of culpable homicide .

 Case Law 3: Ganesh Dooley Tulsa I.L.R 20 All . 143

A snake charmer exhibited in public a venomous snake , whose fangs he knew had not been extracted and to show his skills without any intention to cause harm to anyone , placed the snake on head of one of the spectators . The spectator trying to push off the snake was bitten and died in consequence . The snake charmer was held to be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 Case law 4: B.N. Srikantiah v. Mysore State [AIR 1958 SC 672]

There were as many as 24 injuries on the deceased and of them 21 were incised. They were either on his head, the neck, or the shoulders or on the forearms. Since, most of the injuries were on vital parts and the weapons used were short, it was held that the intention of causing bodily injuries was established, bringing it under the cover of Section 300.

Exceptions to murder:

Exception 1. Section 300  of The Indian Penal Code  – When culpable homicide is not murder.

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—

First.— That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

Secondly.— That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

Thirdly.— That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation.— Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations

(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z‘s child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.

(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.

(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.

Essentials – The following conditions must be complied with in order to invoke the benefits of this clause:-

·        The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.

·        The provocation must be grave.

·        The provocation must be sudden.

·        The offender, by reason of the said provocation, should have been deprived of his power of self-control.

·        The accused killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control.

·        The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.

CASES: The Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605), has extensively discussed the law relating to provocation in India and observed that-

1)    The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class to society as accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.

2)    Words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act under exception.

3)    The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence; and

4)    The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from the provocation and not after the passion has cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving the accused room and scope for premeditation and calculation.

The Supreme Court in Muthu vs State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2008 SC 1), on 5th November 2007  held that constant harassment may lead to deprivation of the power of self-control amounting to a grave and sudden provocation.

The accused Muthu angered by a ragpicker- Shiva's daily habit of throwing waste into his shop, he took out a knife and stabbed him to death. Differentiating a pre- planned crime and a crime resulting from a fit of rage, the court said that this was not a murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, IPC.

 Exception II – Exceeding the Right of Private Defence

Exception 2 deals with those cases wherein a person exceeds the right of private defence. If the excess is intentional, the offence is murder, if unintentional, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Exception II. Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.

Illustration

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.

CASES- In Nathan vs State of Madras (AIR 1973 SC 665), where the landlord tried to evict the accused forcefully and accused in exercise of his right of private defence killed the deceased. The deceased party was not armed with any deadly weapons so there couldn’t have been any fear of death or grievous hurt on the part of the accused. The right of accused was limited to cause any harm other than death. There was no intention to cause death, it was therefore held that the accused exceeded his right of private defence and the case would fall under Exception 2 to Section 300. And the offence committed by the accused was held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.  

In Lacchmi Koeri v. State of Bihar, a sub-inspector deputed havildar and the constable to arrest the appellant but gave no orders in writing. The havildar was not in his uniform. There was no evidence to show that the appellant was acquainted to the havildar prior to the date of encounter. The havildar confronted the appellant and a scuffle ensued between them, in the course of which the appellant's shirt was torn. The appellant then took out a chhura (knife) from his waistband and gave a blow with it on the havildar's arm. the havildar fell into the nala (drain) by the side of the road, still holding onto the appellant who fell on top of him. The appellant then gave several blows to the havildar, got out of the nala and fled. The havildar died very shortly after that.

Held, that the appellant initially had the right to private defence, but subsequently intended to cause far more hurt than was necessary for his defence. Hence, the appellant's case did not come under the Exception 2 to section 300, IPC.

 Exception III – Public servants exceeding his powers

This exception has been provided to protect a public servant or a person aiding a public servant if either of them exceeds the power given for the advancement of public justice. The exception clause will not apply if the act is illegal or against public policy and not authorised by law, or the person glaringly exceeds the power given to him by law.

Exception III. Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

CASES- In Dukhi Singh vs State (AIR 1955 All 379), the appellant a constable of the RPF (Railway Protection Force), while on duty arrested a man under suspicious circumstances, who was standing near a goods wagon while the train had stopped at the Hadlda Khas Station near Allahabad and took him to his compartment. When the train had moved a few paces, the arrested man jumped down from it. As soon as he escaped the appellant followed him with a rifle. Suspecting that the train fireman had concealed the thief, he enquired from  the fireman where the culprit was and further said that he would shoot him. The fireman asked the  appellant that why would he shoot the thief, whereupon the appellant shot him with his rifle. The fireman later died.The appellant pleaded that he had been given orders by the Havildar Kashi Singh to shoot at the thief and further contended that it was a case of pure accident that instead of hitting the thief he had hit the fireman. Held, that in affecting his arrest after the escape the police officer had not had the right to cause death of the suspected thief. Further held, that the appellant exceeded the powers given to him by the law, and he caused the death of the fireman by doing an act which he in good faith, believed to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty and the case would be covered by the Exception 3 to section  300 of IPC. Exception IV — Sudden Fight This exception applies to cases wherein death is caused in a sudden fight without premeditation in the heat of passion in a sudden quarrel; so long as the fight is unpremeditated and sudden, the accused, irrespective of his conduct before the quarrel, earns the mitigation provided for in Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC. Subject to the condition that he did not in the course of fight take undue advantage of or act in a cruel or unusual manner. (Public Prosecutor vs Soma Sundaram, AIR 1959 Mad 323)  Exception IV. Section 302 of The Indian Penal CodeCulpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation — It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

Essential Ingredients – To invoke the benefits of this clause, death must be caused:

·        In a sudden fight;

·        In the heat of passion without premeditation, arising out of sudden quarrel;

·        Without the offenders having taken undue advantage;

·        The offender should not act in a cruel or unusual manner; and

·        The fight must have been with the person killed. [Narayanan Nair vs State of Travancore, AIR 1956 SC 99]

CASES- In Ghapoo Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court held that the dispute being arisen without the premeditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel between the groups , the infliction of injuries and their nature proved the intention of the accused appellant but manner of causing such injuries cannot be termed either as cruel or unusual. It was found that only 1 injury out of 7 was of grievous nature which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The accused appellant had not come prepared with arms for attacking the deceased. It was noticed that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight the accused had caused injuries to the deceased, but had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. the court accordingly gave the o benefit of Exception 4 to section 300 IPC to the accused appellant.

 Exception V – Consent

The last exception to Section 300, IPC deals with causing death by consent which is commonly known as euthanasia (mercy killing). The exception is justified on the grounds that a man’s life is not only valuable to himself, but also to the family members, state, and society. A man is therefore not entitled to give up his life by consent; though consent has unquestionably the effect of mitigating the intensity of crime, it cannot exonerate the offender.

Exception V. Section 300 of The Indian Penal Code

Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Illustration

A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age, to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z‘s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.

Essential ingredients of this exception are:-

·        Consent;

·        By person above age of eighteen years, and

·        Consent must be free and voluntary.

Consent should be unconditional and without any reservation. And it must be unequivocal. Where the accused killed his stepfather who was an infirm, old and invalid man, with the latter’s consent. It was held that the offense was covered by the Exception 5 to Section 300 and punishable under the first part of Section 304 (Ujagar Singh, AIR 1918 Lah 145)  

CASES- In Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar, the accused was a student of class X, he had failed the annual examination for 3 years in succession. The accused was very much upset and depressed at these failures. He took his last failure so much to the heart that he tried to end his life and informed his wife, an illiterate woman of about 19 year of age, of his decision. His wife asked him to first kill her and then kill himself. In accordance with the pact the accused killed his wife first but was arrested before he could kill himself.

Held, that the deceased was above the age of 18 years and that she had suffered death by her own consent. The deceased did not give the assent under the fear of injury, nor under a misconception of fact, but voluntarily, so the case will fall under the Exception 5 to the Section 300, IPC.

[schooloflegaleducation-blog]

Different types of Law and how you can study them

CULPABLE HOMICIDE VS MURDER UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

Introduction:

Culpable Homicide and Murder are among two of the possible types of heinous crimes defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860. It is difficult to comprehend the difference and similarities between the two when the definitions and explanations provided in the IPC are so vague. The purpose of this document is to provide clarity on the same.

WHAT IS HOMICIDE?

Homicide is the killing of a man by another man. Homicide can broadly be divided into lawful homicide and unlawful homicide.

Cases of lawful homicide can be:

When     a person kills another person by accident without any criminal intention     or knowledge.

When     a person kills another person in self defense.

When     a child, a mentally unstable man or an intoxicated person kills another     person.

Euthanasia

Lawful homicide is also called excusable and justifiable homicide.

To learn courses can visit School of Legal Education.

Cases of unlawful homicide can be:

Culpable  Homicide

Unlawful homicide may be divided into three categories- culpable homicide, cause death by rash and negligent driving and suicide.

WHAT IS CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

Culpable Homicide is a form of unlawful homicide which is punishable under Section 299 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860.

Culpable Homicide: Section 299 of the IPC

Causing the death of a human being by doing an act with

The     Intention of causing death.

Intentionally     causing bodily injury which is likely to cause     death.

Doing     an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause     death.

Manslaughter and Murder are some forms of Culpable Homicide. But not all culpable homicides are murder and manslaughter as we will see in subsequent sections.

WHAT IS MURDER?

Murder is a form of Culpable Homicide only which is punishable under section 300 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

Murder: Section 300 of the IPC

Causing the death of a human being by doing an act with

The     Intention of causing death.

Causing     such bodily injury as the offender knows it is likely to cause death of a     person.

Intentionally     causing bodily injury which is sufficient to cause     death.

Doing     an act with knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous and     in all probability causes death.

 What is PLEA OF ALIBI UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT?

 The Latin word ‘Alibi’ actually means ‘elsewhere’. The given terminology is put to use when the accused takes the appeal that when the incident took place, he was at some other place. Under such a situation, the prosecution ought to discharge the burden adequately. Once the prosecution is favorable in discharging the burden, it is obligatory on the accused who takes the place of alibi to prove it with absolute certainty. An alibi is not an exception conceptualized or contemplated in the IPC or any other law. It is an actual rule of manifestation accepted and acknowledged by Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts conflicting with fact in issue are pertinent.

When an accused takes the plea of alibi, the sole strain and responsibility of proof remains on him as per section 103 of this Act. In case, a person is accused of murder, he himself has to prove that he was somewhere else. The petition of alibi has to be taken as early as possible and it has to be confirmed to the fulfilment of the court.

For more details about the Indian evidence Act visit: https://www.schooloflegaleducation.com/blog-post/plea-of-alibi-under-the-indian-evidence-act/

What Is Family Law?

Family law is a composite field wherein multiple personal laws of varied religions are involved. India is a vast secular country. Along with such secularism comes the need to keep different personal laws in check for better adjudication and to avoid injustice. Family law primarily talks about the laws of marriage & its dissolution, inheritance, succession, partition, adoption and guardianship under Hindu and Muslim Laws. Since a number of small statutes are involved, this course emphasizes on the basic important concepts of every such law.

[forgottenpasta]

I need advice...

I have a crush on my Criminology professor. This has never before happened to me. I’m sitting there giving him heart eyes while he’s quite gruesomely explaining the difference between murder and culpable homicide. He ain’t traditionally handsome either, his personality and mind are just so hot. Brainy is the new sexy, as Irene Adler would say. This isn’t healthy pls, I’m gonna have to present cases to him. I don’t wanna be tongue tied. What should I do? Has anything like this happened to any of you?

[capoteholmes]

Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories By S.S. Van Dine

1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.

2. No wilful tricks or deceptions may be played on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

3. There must be no love interest in the story. To introduce amour is to clutter up a purely intellectual experience with irrelevant sentiment. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

4. The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. This is bald trickery, on a par with offering some one a bright penny for a five-dollar gold piece. It's false pretenses.

5. The culprit must be determined by logical deductions--not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker.

6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.

7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded. Americans are essentially humane, and therefore a tiptop murder arouses their sense of vengeance and horror. They wish to bring the perpetrator to justice; and when "murder most foul, as in the best it is," has been committed, the chase is on with all the righteous enthusiasm of which the thrice gentle reader is capable.

8. The problem of the crime must be solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic sÈances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.

9. There must be but one detective--that is, but one protagonist of deduction--one deus ex machine. To bring the minds of three or four, or sometimes a gang of detectives to bear on a problem is not only to disperse the interest and break the direct thread of logic, but to take an unfair advantage of the reader, who, at the outset, pits his mind against that of the detective and proceeds to do mental battle. If there is more than one detective the reader doesn't know who his co-deductor is. It's like making the reader run a race with a relay team.

10. The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story--that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest. For a writer to fasten the crime, in the final chapter, on a stranger or person who has played a wholly unimportant part in the tale, is to confess to his inability to match wits with the reader.

11. Servants--such as butlers, footmen, valets, game-keepers, cooks, and the like--must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. It is unsatisfactory, and makes the reader feel that his time has been wasted. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person--one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion; for if the crime was the sordid work of a menial, the author would have had no business to embalm it in book-form.

12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.

13. Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. Here the author gets into adventure fiction and secret-service romance. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance, but it is going too far to grant him a secret society (with its ubiquitous havens, mass protection, etc.) to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds in his jousting-bout with the police.

14. The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. For instance, the murder of a victim by a newly found element--a super-radium, let us say--is not a legitimate problem. Nor may a rare and unknown drug, which has its existence only in the author's imagination, be administered. A detective-story writer must limit himself, toxicologically speaking, to the pharmacopoeia. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.

15. The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent--provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face--that all the clues really pointed to the culprit--and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying. And one of my basic theories of detective fiction is that, if a detective story is fairly and legitimately constructed, it is impossible to keep the solution from all readers. There will inevitably be a certain number of them just as shrewd as the author; and if the author has shown the proper sportsmanship and honesty in his statement and projection of the crime and its clues, these perspicacious readers will be able, by analysis, elimination and logic, to put their finger on the culprit as soon as the detective does. And herein lies the zest of the game. Herein we have an explanation for the fact that readers who would spurn the ordinary "popular" novel will read detective stories unblushingly.

16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. Such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action, and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude; but when an author of a detective story has reached that literary point where he has created a gripping sense of reality and enlisted the reader's interest and sympathy in the characters and the problem, he has gone as far in the purely "literary" technique as is legitimate and compatible with the needs of a criminal-problem document. A detective story is a grim business, and the reader goes to it, not for literary furbelows and style and beautiful descriptions and the projection of moods, but for mental stimulation and intellectual activity--just as he goes to a ball game or to a cross-word puzzle. Lectures between innings at the Polo Grounds on the beauties of nature would scarcely enhance the interest in the struggle between two contesting baseball nines; and dissertations on etymology and orthography interspersed in the definitions of a cross-word puzzle would tend only to irritate the solver bent on making the words interlock correctly.

17. A professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of a crime in a detective story. Crimes by house-breakers and bandits are the province of the police department--not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. Such crimes belong to the routine work of the Homicide Bureaus. A really fascinating crime is one committed by a pillar of a church, or a spinster noted for her charities.

18. A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to play an unpardonable trick on the reader. If a book-buyer should demand his two dollars back on the ground that the crime was a fake, any court with a sense of justice would decide in his favor and add a stinging reprimand to the author who thus hoodwinked a trusting and kind-hearted reader.

19. The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction--in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gem¸tlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader's everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions.

20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective-story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality.

Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect.

The bogus spiritualistic sÈance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away.

Forged finger-prints.

The dummy-figure alibi.

The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar.

The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person.

The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops.

The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in.

The word-association test for guilt.

The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unravelled by the sleuth.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch 23apr21

SCt decided Jones v. Mississippi,  593 U. S. ___ (2021) on Thurs.  J. Kavanaugh wrote for the Court.  There were three dissents.

In August 2004, Brett Jones was living with his grandparents, Bertis and Madge, in Shannon, Mississippi. Shannon is a small town of about 2,000 in northern Mississippi near Tupelo, about halfway between Memphis and Birmingham off I–22. 

At the time, Jones was only 15 years old. On the morning of August 9, 2004, Bertis discovered Jones’s girlfriend, Michelle Austin, in Jones’s bedroom. Bertis and Jones got into an argument, and Bertis ordered Austin out of the house. A few hours later, Jones told Austin that he “‘was going to hurt’” his grandfather. 938 So. 2d 312, 314 (Miss. App. 2006). 

That afternoon, Jones was in the kitchen making himself something to eat. Jones and Bertis began arguing again. The clash escalated from shouts to shoves to punches. Jones then stabbed his grandfather with a kitchen knife. When that knife broke, Jones picked up a second knife and continued stabbing Bertis. In total, Jones stabbed his grandfather eight times. 

Bleeding profusely, Bertis staggered outside, fell to the ground, and died. Jones did not call 911. Instead, he haphazardly attempted to cover up his role in the murder. He dragged Bertis’s body back inside. Jones then washed the blood off his arms with a water hose, changed out of his bloody shirt, and moved Bertis’s car over some blood stains on the carport floor.

While Jones was outside, he was seen by a neighbor. The neighbor called the police. Shortly thereafter, another neighbor saw Jones and Austin leaving the house together on foot. Later that night, police located Jones and Austin at a gas station several miles away. When questioned, Jones and Austin provided fake names to the officer. After a police pat down revealed a knife in Jones’s pocket, the officer asked Jones whether it was the knife that he “‘did it with.’” Id., at 315. Jones responded, “‘No, I already got rid of it.’” *** 

According to Jones, in order to impose a life-without-parole sentence on a defendant who committed a murder when he or she was under 18, the sentencer must make a separate factual finding that the defendant is permanently incorrigible. The Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected Jones’s argument***  

The Court also rejected this argument.

About 850 of the individuals who committed a homicide [in 2004] were known to be under 18—meaning that, on average, more than two homicides were committed every day by individuals under 18.***

As this case again demonstrates, any homicide, and particularly a homicide committed by an individual under 18, is a horrific tragedy for all involved and for all affected. Determining the proper sentence in such a case raises profound questions of morality and social policy. The States, not the federal courts, make those broad moral and policy judgments in the first instance when enacting their sentencing laws.***

J. Thomas concurred.

The Court’s language in this line of precedents is notable. When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that “ ‘children are different’ ” and that courts must consider “a child’s lesser culpability.” ***. And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a “young woman’s” right to choose. *** It is curious how the Court’s view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue.***

“It is therefore implausible that a [15]-year-old’s . . . prison sentence—of any length, with or without parole—would have been viewed as cruel and unusual” [when the 8th Amendment was ratified.]

[orbemnews]

Protesters gather at Brooklyn Center police station hours after ex-officer is charged in the death of Daunte Wright A firework was seen going off and police fired flash bombs Wednesday night as a curfew got closer. Officers declared the gathering an unlawful assembly late Wednesday, about an hour before curfew. The curfew in Brooklyn Center was from 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. CT, Mayor Mike Elliott said Wednesday during a news conference. Surrounding cities have also enacted curfews, but Minneapolis and St. Paul have not, according to their respective websites. Earlier this week, then-Police Chief Tim Gannon said Wright’s death appeared to be the result of Potter mistaking her gun for her Taser as Wright resisted arrest. But Imran Ali, a prosecutor in Orput’s office, has said prosecutors intend “to prove that Officer Potter abrogated her responsibility to protect the public when she used her firearm rather than her Taser.” “Her action caused the unlawful killing of Mr. Wright and she must be held accountable,” Ali said in a news release. Potter, who resigned as a Brooklyn Center police officer this week, was arrested and charged Wednesday with second-degree manslaughter, Washington County Attorney Pete Orput said. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office determined Wright died of a gunshot wound and that his death was a homicide. Potter was arrested late Wednesday morning by agents with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the bureau said. She was booked into the Hennepin County Jail, online records show. Potter posted bail and was released from custody, according to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s official website. She will make her first court appearance via Zoom on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. CT. In Minnesota, second-degree manslaughter applies when authorities allege a person causes someone’s death by “culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” Someone convicted of this charge would face a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $20,000. CNN has sought comment from Potter’s attorney, Earl Gray. Protests, some violent, have taken place each night after Wright’s death, in and around Brooklyn Center. OSN tweeted 79 people were arrested Tuesday night. Wright’s family had called for charges against the officer. Fencing and barricades are in place around Potter’s home, where two police officers and two police vehicles were seen in her driveway Wednesday. “I share our community’s anger and sadness and shock,” Elliott, the mayor, said. “My message to all who are demanding justice for (Daunte Wright) and for his family is this: Your voices have been heard, now the eyes of the world are watching Brooklyn Center and I urge you to protest peacefully and without violence.” Potter and police chief resign after shooting Developments in the investigation have unfolded daily, including the release of body camera footage and Gannon’s statement that the shooting appeared accidental on Monday, and the resignations of Potter and Gannon on Tuesday. Though Potter has submitted a resignation letter, Mayor Elliott said Tuesday he has not accepted it, adding “we’re doing our internal process to make sure that we are being accountable to the steps that we need to take.” Earlier, he told CBS he thought Potter should be fired. Potter is still entitled to benefits following her resignation, though it is not clear what those benefits are, Edwards said. Orput is the prosecutor in Washington County, near Hennepin County, where Brooklyn Center is. The case was given to Washington County prosecutors to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest in Hennepin County, officials have said. Sunday’s killing of Wright is at least the third high-profile death of a Black man during a police encounter in the Minneapolis area in the past five years, after the shooting of Philando Castile in Falcon Heights in 2016 and the death of George Floyd last year. Minneapolis police also were under scrutiny when an officer was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter for the 2017 fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk, a White woman. The trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer accused of killing Floyd, is taking place just 10 miles from Brooklyn Center. Gray, Potter’s attorney, also is the attorney for Thomas Lane, one of four officers involved in Floyd’s death, and one of the defense attorneys for Jeronimo Yanez, the former police officer who was found not guilty in Castile’s death. Reacting to the manslaughter charge, one of the Wright family’s attorneys, Benjamin Crump, released a statement saying “while we appreciate that the district attorney is pursuing justice for Daunte, no conviction can give the Wright family their loved one back.” “This (shooting) was no accident. This was an intentional, deliberate and unlawful use of force,” Crump’s statement reads. “Driving while Black continues to result in a death sentence. A 26-year veteran of the force knows the difference between a Taser and a firearm,” Crump wrote. He added that the Wright family would hold a news conference Thursday afternoon. As a result of unrest in the city, acting City Manager Reggie Edwards announced the formation of the Brooklyn Center Community Crisis Team. The team includes nine members representing the business, faith, education and nonprofit communities in the city as well as the city government. Two families come together in tragedy Floyd’s family left the courthouse during Chauvin’s trial Tuesday “because they thought it was important that they give comfort to Daunte Wright’s mother” and family, Crump said Tuesday at a news conference with the two families. “We will stand in support with you. … The world is traumatized, watching another African American man being slayed,” said Philonise Floyd, brother of George Floyd. “I woke up in the morning with this on my mind. I don’t want to see another victim.” The losses of both Wright and Floyd were acknowledged in Tuesday’s protests. Demonstrators knelt for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, to symbolize the amount of time authorities say Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck. And just as the Floyd family did last year, the Wright family is looking for more answers surrounding their loved one’s death. One of the family’s attorneys, Jeffrey Storms, told CNN that Gannon’s explanation — that the shooting appeared to be an accident — “is by no means proper or enough.” “There were a number of intentional events that led to (Daunte Wright) being dead, and we need to find out exactly why each one of those intentional events happened,” Storms said Tuesday. “Grabbing your sidearm that you’ve likely deployed thousands, if not tens of thousands, of times is an intentional act,” Storms said. “A sidearm feels different than a Taser. It looks different than a Taser. (It) requires different pressure in order to deploy it.” Wright’s father, Aubrey Wright, told ABC on Tuesday that he couldn’t accept Gannon’s explanation that Sunday’s shooting was accidental. “I can’t accept that — a mistake. That doesn’t even sound right,” he told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” He cited the officer’s length of service — authorities said she’d been with Brooklyn Center police for 26 years. Wright’s mother, Katie Wright, said she wanted to see the officer “held accountable for everything that she’s taken from us.” “It should have never, ever escalated the way it did,” Katie Wright told ABC. What happened in traffic stop that ended Wright’s life Wright was with his girlfriend Sunday afternoon, driving to the house of his older brother, Damik Bryant. Officers pulled him over in Brooklyn Center for an expired tag and learned he had an outstanding warrant, police said. The warrant was for a gross misdemeanor weapons charge, according to the news release from Orput’s office. Wright gave officers his name before calling his mother, Bryant said. His mother, Katie Wright, told reporters that Daunte Wright called her, and she heard a police officer ask him to put down his phone and get out of the car. Daunte told her he’d explain why he was pulled over after he exited, she said. She eventually heard police ask him to hang up, and then scuffling, before the call ended, she said. Body camera footage released Monday shows Wright standing outside his vehicle with his arms behind his back and an officer directly behind him, trying to handcuff him. An officer tells Wright “don’t,” before Wright twists away and gets back into the driver’s seat of the car. Orput’s office said Potter “pulled her Glock 9mm handgun with her right hand and pointed it at Wright.” The officer whose camera footage was released is heard warning the man she’s going to use her Taser on him, before repeatedly shouting, “Taser! Taser! Taser!” It’s at this point that Orput’s office says Potter “pulled the trigger on her handgun” and fired one round into the left side of Wright. “Wright immediately said, “ah, he shot me,” and the car sped away for a short distance before crashing into another vehicle and stopping,” the release said. Then, the officer is heard screaming, “Holy sh*t! I just shot him.” An ambulance was called and Wright was pronounced dead at the scene, Orput’s release states. Gannon said the portion of body-worn camera footage released Monday led him to believe the shooting was accidental and that the officer’s actions before the shooting were consistent with the department’s training on Tasers. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension examined Potter’s duty belt and found her handgun is holstered on the right side of her belt, while the Taser is on the left side, according to a news release from Orput’s office. Citing a criminal complaint, the release said the Taser is yellow with a black grip and is set in a straight-draw position, “meaning Potter would have to use her left hand to pull the Taser out of its holster.” CNN’s Carma Hassan, Adrienne Broaddus, Amir Vera, Keith Allen, Hollie Silverman, Peter Nickeas, Jessica Schneider, Jessica Jordan, Christina Carrega, Shawn Nottingham and contributed to this report. Source link Orbem News #Brooklyn #Center #charged #Daunte #Death #exofficer #gather #hours #Police #protesters #Station #Wright

[degreeacademic]

7 Important Life Lessons 7nd Degree Manslaughter Taught Us | 7nd degree manslaughter

Second-degree manslaughter is defined as the murder of another person with malicious intent, for example, killing a person while committing suicide. While this crime can have serious consequences, it does not necessarily need to be included as one of the charges of murder, manslaughter or any other felony.

There are several types of manslaughter, which fall into two categories: first degree and second degree. First degree manslaughter involves the intentional killing of another person while the offender's criminal intent is manifested through actions taken during a crime. Second-degree manslaughter, on the other hand, is the use of unlawful violence against another person. This includes intentional, reckless, intentional or reckless infliction of physical injury, but does not require the commission of the other type of felonies involved in homicide.

Second-degree manslaughter is usually punished by up to ten years in prison, however, first degree manslaughter is punishable by life imprisonment or death. The penalties can be increased to include several additional years if the defendant caused the death of more than one person. This includes causing multiple deaths through criminal negligence, but only if the defendant was legally responsible for those deaths.

If the accused chooses to pursue legal action, then he will face challenges from prosecutors as well as his own defense counsel. In addition, the defendant will be under the microscope of the judge and jury in deciding what penalties will apply and what punishment the accused deserves for his actions.

In many cases of manslaughter, the accused is found innocent because he did not have intent to cause harm, but instead was only involved with negligence on the part of another person. It is rare that the first degree of manslaughter conviction is dropped in most states. It is rare that a person accused of manslaughter is charged with second degree.

When you are facing this type of charge, you should consult a very experienced and highly experienced, dangerous criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. You also want an attorney who has a wealth of experience and expertise when it comes to the prosecution of this type of crime. Your lawyer will make sure that you are not only convicted but also given the harshest sentence that is appropriate to your case.

While there are some people who believe that the use of the word “manslaughter” is too broad for criminal law, others believe that this charge is the right thing to use. After all, everyone has the right to live their lives without fear or danger, even if the danger comes from another person.

Manslaughter is a very serious crime that can land you in jail for a long time and also result in severe financial punishment. For this reason, you need to hire a highly skilled and experienced criminal defense attorney. that knows the ins and outs of this type of criminal case and is fully aware of every step you take from the beginning to the end of your case.

Involuntary Manslaughter vs 7nd Degree Murder (video scribe) – 2nd degree manslaughter | 2nd degree manslaughter

What’s the difference between 7st-degree murder, 7nd-degree murder – 2nd degree manslaughter | 2nd degree manslaughter

Criminal Law Concept: Mens Rea – culpability based on mental state – 2nd degree manslaughter | 2nd degree manslaughter

Four takeaways from Ellison’s decision to prosecute the three – 2nd degree manslaughter | 2nd degree manslaughter

What is the Difference Between Murder and Manslaughter – Pediaa | 2nd degree manslaughter

7 | 2nd degree manslaughter

Derek Chauvin charged with 7rd degree murder, manslaughter in death of George Floyd – 2nd degree manslaughter | 2nd degree manslaughter

The post 7 Important Life Lessons 7nd Degree Manslaughter Taught Us | 7nd degree manslaughter appeared first on Academic Degree.

from WordPress https://degreeneat.com/7-important-life-lessons-7nd-degree-manslaughter-taught-us-7nd-degree-manslaughter/