Involuntary Manslaughter

There are several types of murders that one could commit. For example, serial murders are a sequence of murders in which there is a time break between victims which could range between days or even months. To be defined as a serial killer, one would have to kill several victims in three or more separate events.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM) and Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) are two types of Involuntary Manslaughter. Manslaughter occurs in many cases in relation to death where a defendant may be liable for manslaughter as a lesser sentence as an alternative to murder. There are elements to each type of manslaughter where they can be assessed in accordance to each case. This project will explore, whether the law is satisfactory in regards to a drug user who has either merely supplied drugs to a user or assisted in administering the drugs. The project will also take into consideration whether the law draws distinctions in relation to the level of assistance given and whether a duty exists between such parties of a drug user.

3. Arkansas Code Ann. § 5-10-104 – (a) A person commits manslaughter if: . . . (2) The person purposely causes or aids another person to commit suicide[.];

Rule: Omission to act (or reneging on a duty to act) or acting as an accomplice to the action of another all of these are other forms of homicide, such as when the failure to engage in an activity (such as not preventing someone from drunk driving) or facilitating a crime results in a murder.

In the case discussing Jim Aikens when discussing the charges he should face in regards to the mailman he could be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill. The situations leading to the killing must be one that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder. On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought such as murder and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense.

It was held that failure to direct the jury that a verdict of manslaughter was available Hind’s murder conviction, was merely an error of law and advantageous to Harwood. Accordingly, there was not a miscarriage of justice as the jury were instructed that a conviction of manslaughter was available to Hind if they were not satisfied as to murder due to his negligent handling of the firearm.

The FBI classifies Murder and negligient homoicide as: when a person is willfully killed by another. There

Most of the states in the United States consider driver under the influence and kill someone, vehicular manslaughter. According to Stim (2015), Alaska, Montana, and Arizona are the only three states that more often than not charge defendants with murder over manslaughter in vehicular deaths caused by driving under the influence. To put it in perspective, 94% of the states in the United States prefer manslaughter convictions over homicide. Vehicular manslaughter is broken down into two divisions. Vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence. Gross negligence comes from driving that is extremely reckless. Ordinary negligence spawns from the driver failing to take the precautions as a typical driver, and injury/death is caused. For example, if an intoxicated driver is swerving all over the road and strikes a car that results in death for the opposing driver, that would be gross negligence. Now if an intoxicated driver fails to yield properly and t-bones a car that results in death of the other driver, that would be ordinary negligence. If a defendant is found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, they face at least 4-10 years behind bars for each person killed. Therefore, if a car has two people in it that were killed, the sentencing can be doubled. In comparison, if a murder charge sticks, the defendant’s sentence can range from 10 years to lifelong imprisonment. McCurley (2014) argues that both of the drivers involved in the accident could be found to be intoxicated. “If one driver lives and the other dies, why should the driver that survives be charged with murder?” He is saying that both drivers can be at fault as they were both intoxicated. The reason we lock away homicidal people is because of their mental state. We do not want them to be able to roam the free world and possibly commit murder again. When people drive under the influence and take a life, that does

According to a website where it talks about different degrees of murder, “Manslaughter generally means an illegal killing that falls short of murder. The lowest form of manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter. This means that the perpetrator did not intend to kill anyone, but still killed the victim through behavior that was either criminally negligent or reckless” (Findlaw). It continues on to talk about the example of drunk driving. “Someone driving drunk is behaving in a criminally reckless manner, even if they had no intent to kill anyone” (Findlaw). This relates to what I’m trying to prove. We were told to kill our companion cube not understanding the consequences and we didn’t have the intent of killing anyone. It is still a low degree or murder but killing something that had a whole different life than us was still

This new amendment will cognate closely with various categories of manslaughter, particularly the element of no intention, however there are vast dissimilarities that will contribute in the reduced alcohol and drug related violence in Queensland’s nightlife. Manslaughter is defined in s 303 as, “a person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter .” Essentially, the law states that it is an unlawful killing that does not amount to murder. The law is demonstrated in the case of Kaporonovski v R , that a person is not criminally responsible for an event ‘which was not in fact intended or foreseen by the accused and would not reasonably have been foreseen by an ordinary person .” In applying the law to the present problem, it can be seen that manslaughter allows the accused to rely upon a series of defences. Currently, a person who unlawfully strikes another is capable of escaping punishment because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the victim, “or that the death was foreseen as a probably consequence of their violent actions .” The insertion of ‘unlawful striking causing death’ will preclude the accused from pleading the accident defence, irrespective of the intention being ‘deliberate and wilful . The offence provides that, under s 314A (4), a person is not criminally responsible for unlawful striking causing death, if the act is done as part of a socially acceptable function or activity (defined as including sporting event) and reasonable in the circumstances . Other defences for unlawfully striking include provocation. Section 268 has defined the term ‘provocation’ as an offence of which an assault is an element . The case of Kaporonovski v R, explains this

I woke up to the sound of tropical birds echoing in my ears, the beautiful songs they were singing almost made me forget the horrors of the past few days. Lying on a dead mans bed, I thought, well that’s a new one. As I got up I pondered if I was to be put on trial whether the jury would rule it as self-defense or murder. My next thought was that I was famished but immediately I got a bad taste in my mouth remembering the previous night. I then went to the kitchen got some breakfast consisting of bread and jam. Then I began packing provisions cheese, bread, hardtack, pemmican, and water.

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

In all criminal offences, a defendant can be convicted only if the proof of both “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea” exists. The meaning of those two Latin phrases are “guilty act” and “guilty mind” respectively. Regarding the criminal offence of murder, an unlawful act which caused a human being’s death is sufficed to prove Actus Reus. Thus, the doctrine of causation must be proved, in other words, the victim’s death must be caused by the defendant’s unlawful act. Also, in murder cases, as suggested in the case of R v Moloney (1985) AC 905 and clarified in R v Vickers (1957) 2 QB 664, the Mens Rea will be established only if intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm can be proved.

The US criminal law provides for a difference between the two crimes of murder and manslaughter. The law describes manslaughter as the killing of a person without any malicious intent (Manslaughter Law, n.d.). As per the US common law, murder was construed to mean killing intentionally with malice aforethought or just killing unlawfully (Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | Nolo.com, n.d.). Manslaughter may be voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary manslaughter involves committing an act that does not add up to a felony, acting lawlessly or without due circumspection or caution or a death-causing act. On the other hand, voluntary manslaughter results from an in-the-heat-of-the-moment act. This paper is an analytical discussion of Oscar Pistorius’ crime.

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”