Im not sure what you mean? For murder you have to have "intent" to kill, (eta or seriously injur) the "mens rea"..manslaughter on the other hand can be caused by recklessness, so no intent is neccessary.
Last edited:
America going soft on capital punishment
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
murder, you mean?
You can be charged and convicted of manslaughter without being tried for murder. Example of the top of my head was the ferry disaster where the captain went too close to shore, then abandoned ship (Costa Concordia)..harsh giving him nearly 20 years for an accident, but we live in an age of retribution and revenge, not compassion, understanding and empathy.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
ah right, looked like you were saying the opposite
This conviction was overturned and he was convicted of manslaugter..The precedent still stands.
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 Court of Appeal
The appellant held a grudge against Viola Foreshaw. He went to her house in the middle of the night poured paraffin through her letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire. The trial was held before the judgment was delivered in Moloney. The judge directed the jury as follows:
"If when the accused performed the act of setting fire to the house, he knew that it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily injury to somebody inside the house, even though he did not desire it - desire to bring that result about - he is guilty or murder."
The jury convicted of murder and the defendant appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction.
Held: There was a clear misdirection. The Court of Appeal reviewed the cases of Moloney and Hancock & Shankland and formulated a new direction from the two decisions.
Lord Lane CJ:
"the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
R v Nedrick
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 Court of Appeal
The appellant held a grudge against Viola Foreshaw. He went to her house in the middle of the night poured paraffin through her letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire. The trial was held before the judgment was delivered in Moloney. The judge directed the jury as follows:
"If when the accused performed the act of setting fire to the house, he knew that it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily injury to somebody inside the house, even though he did not desire it - desire to bring that result about - he is guilty or murder."
The jury convicted of murder and the defendant appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction.
Held: There was a clear misdirection. The Court of Appeal reviewed the cases of Moloney and Hancock & Shankland and formulated a new direction from the two decisions.
Lord Lane CJ:
"the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."
R v Nedrick
bimble
floofy
Happened recently in a case very local to me. The killer got convicted of manslaughter after the charge of murder didn’t quite convince the jury. In this case it was a pretty close call I think and would seem wrong to have vastly different outcomes depending on which way the jury decided.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
No it isn't.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
No it isn't.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Surely you can murder someone on a whim?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
perhaps you could share with us a definition of murder which doesn't have the intent to kill in it.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
If you intend serious harm and as a result the person dies.
You know, like the one the filth and courts use an tha.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes, you can. but there must be an intent to kill (= malice aforethought)
bimble
floofy
That can be deemed manslaughter though, as it was in the case near me. No question serious harm was intended just no proof he intended to have the victim actually die.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i'm not entirely certain in what meaningful way that differs from the definition i posted above.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
It can be deemed manslaughter, it can also be deemed murder. It is a fine line. But you do not have to have the intent to kill nor does a jury need to believe you had an intent to kill to find you guilty of murder.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
If you intend to kill and seriously injure someone you can be done for attempted murder.
If you intend to seriously injure someone and do seriously injure them you cannot be done for attempted murder, GBH is where your conviction will settle.
If you intend to seriously injure someone and they die as a result of the serious injuries you cause, that will get you a murder conviction.
The difference between 5 years and mandatory life, I would suggest that is a meaningful difference.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Are you sure? I thought intent to cause harm was a necessary attribute for it to be deemed murder.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Read it wrong. My bad.
If a defendant claims he didnt have intent to seriously harm or kill, (the subjective element) then its to the "reasonable man test" the objective test by the jury to decide if a reasonable person in that situation would recognise serious injury or death was a "virtual certainty".
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Dunno what point your trying to make here, you sneeringly asked: perhaps you could share with us a definition of murder which doesn't have the intent to kill in it.
And there clearly is a definition of murder that doesn't have the intent to kill in it, you've just fucking well posted it.
Arguing against yourself, you must get it from your pa.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Single punch killers quite often get charged with murder and convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Often hangs on whether the defendant bubbles himself up to OB. Always have a brief and always say nothing.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I think you'll find it does have intent to kill in it, and your intent to cause serious harm. I'm not arguing against myself, your expansion of the definition should be in there. I'm curious, what should I have done in response to your 'no it isn't instead of asking you to share your view?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Similar threads
