10
The answer is going to depend on what jurisdiction you're talking about. But I can give you some general principles that apply, in most cases, in the U.S. at least.
"Homicide" is a general term for the killing of one person by another. If someone died, and another person caused it, it's homicide.
"Murder" and "manslaughter" are specific crimes, usually now ...
7
You have asked about "United Kingdom", but I can only answer about England and Wales; the law in Scotland is very different (rather more different in some respects than the difference between E&W and the State of New York).
There is no time limit per se on manslaughter charges; if the police find evidence for a manslaughter charge after 80 years, there ...
5
The distinction is a question of culpability, not just the harm caused.
The law, at least in the criminal law context, is not fundamentally consequentialist in its philosophy. The end consequence of an act for which someone is at fault in some way isn't the only thing that matters in criminal law. Instead, there is basically a two dimensional grid.
On one ...
4
Murder is intentional and premeditated killing. Manslaughter is also criminal killing but is not murder, because it is not premeditated e.g. someone comes home and discovers the spouse in bed with someone else, and "kills." That's voluntary manslaughter. Homicide is killing, criminal or not, so "self defense" or accidental killing is homicide. All murder and ...
4
When it is a mistake of memory, and not intentional (as this question is asking), there are no clear standards, and it is largely up to prosecutorial discretion. This means that whatever factors affect prosecutorial discretion (such as the prosecutor knowing who they have to work with on other days) can become significant in the determination.
A ...
4
As you describe it, the survivor knows that the action will result in death, and premeditatedly undertakes the action. So we turn to the murder statute in that (unspecified) jurisdiction, which will be like this:
A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when: (a) With a
premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she
causes ...
4
For the same reason that double parking isn't
They are different offences for which the community, through its political and legal systems, have decided deserve different punishment under the law.
For a multitude of reasons, society holds a person who plans a killing in cold blood and then puts that plan into operation more culpable that a person who kills ...
4
Manslaughter or Negligence -does not inform all risks in surgery which results in death of a patient
I don't think that simply failing to make a sufficient explanation of the risks would make a death manslaughter. Three would have to have been serious negligence in addition, rather beyond the level needed to find malpractice, as I understand the matter.
Law.com says that:
Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while committing a ...
3
No.
It would not meet the criteria for "unlawful act manslaughter" per the CPS Guide for Crown Prosecutors:
The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.
This is because there's no unbroken chain of causation.
Let's walk through each element.
1. An ...
3
It depends on the law
For example, the NSW Crimes Act 1900 s18 defines murder and manslaughter:
(1)
(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous ...
3
In Guam,
Any person who is an expert in the art of karate or judo, or any
similar physical are in which the hands and feet are used
as deadly weapons, is required to register with the Department of
Revenue and Taxation
but
This Chapter shall not apply to duly authorized and appointed peace
and law enforcement officers, nor to ...
3
There are many factors that determine whether charges are brought (not just for negligent homicide). One pertains to jurisdiction: if there is a difference in the statutes of two states, you will get different likelihoods of prosecution. The second pertains to prevailing case law, that is, how the courts interpret the words of a statute. The third is the ...
3
Normally, making a poison is not in and of itself a crime. If a third party took the poison from the person who manufactured it without their knowledge, the manufacturer would generally not have criminal liability, at least in the absence of "gross criminal negligence" such as leaving the poison manufacturing location totally unsecured and letting people ...
2
Astronauts are employees of the government and are thus barred from suing in lieu of receiving the government equivalent of worker's compensation. This wouldn't bar a suit against a third-party contractor who made a defective product, but I suspect that their contracts contain a waiver of liability for negligence or defective products given that this is ...
2
The name given to different grades of homicide offenses differs considerably from state to state. Colorado, whose penal code is based loosely on the Model Penal Code, does not have an offense called "involuntary manslaughter" and the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" would not be uniform from state to state that does use that term, although there ...
2
It would not matter. Alabama is a state with a fetal homicide law, where killing a fetus is legally the equivalent of killing a person (there is an exception for doctors). In this case, the government is relying on the definition of homicide where one "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person". That ...
2
Can be tried as first-degree murder, actually. See below.
felony murder doctrine
n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the
commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in
that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty
of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving ...
1
Non-united-states answer
In most parts of the world, the driver is at fault.
For example, in new-south-wales, this is caught by s117 of the Road Transport Act 2013:
(1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a road negligently.
"Negligently" takes its common law meaning and the case law establishes that unless the pedestrian appears suddenly (such ...
1
The crime you are asking about is called felony murder. Felony murder has two unique features:
First, killing someone while committing a felony is automatically considered first degree murder.
Second, everyone who participates, not matter how remotely, in the felony can be charged with first degree murder.
In this example, suppose the bank robber had a ...
1
I think the problem here, is that if the move is provably always fatal, it would not be legit (as this would open up the sports organization running the sanctioned match to all manner of legal issues). So a move that is always fatal would be banned and not legal. Rules generally exist to ensure that the competition is fair, or that the competitors are safe,...
1
This is the question of whether the sentences are to run consecutively or concurrently, and it's part of the sentencing decision. In many cases, the judge may have the discretion to make this decision based on the circumstances of the crime, the defendant's history, and so on. Some jurisdictions might have sentencing guidelines to help ensure consistency; ...
1
I'm having a hard time understanding what "ignoring self defense" could mean in this context. Assume the thief does not die, then what has happened? If we ignore self defense, the resident ("Smith") has battered the thief. If we don't ignore self defense, then maybe Smith is guilty of battery, or maybe not. Suppose Smith challenges the thief and cries out "...
1
In Canada, I think Tommy would be found guilty of criminal negligence causing death.
Criminal negligence
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
