Why Is Manslaughter Wrong

While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the

This case made it to The Supreme Court. Once the appellant appealed his conviction of manslaughter that he received at the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 18th, 1990, which sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. The Crown defined manslaughter in Section 222 ( 5 ) of The Criminal Code, which states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being means of an unlawful act or an act of negligence. However, when The Defense challenged this section due to the unique circumstances of this case that caused this case it to go to The Supreme Court of Canada since the Defense also said that it was in conflict with Section 7 of the Charter. In conclusion, the Defense we’re trying to dispute the fact that the accused committed manslaughter.

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

It is not clear what the goals of these prosecutions were. One possible goal was to protect the unborn life. Some scholars have claimed that State v. Watson shows that the purpose of the Kansas statutes was to protect the “unborn life.” But, Watson does not seem to have any language that suggests such a purpose beside possibly the language of the statute itself. Furthermore, the Watson court interchangeable uses the word child and fetus throughout its opinion. Furthermore, Section 39 does not even mention the fetus or the unborn child. As previously mentioned, the prosecutions also do not seem to suggest such a purpose as they seem to only occur because the woman either died during the procedure or was forced into the procedure. Therefore, while this goal is possible, the evidence does not seem to support it.

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

In some ethical and legal respects a pregnant woman and her fetus can be considered separate. Both the woman and the fetus are ordinarily affected by the well-being of one another for as long as each of them live. The ethical and legal issues are challenged deeply in cases where the well-being of the fetus and the mother appear to be in conflict. Our society struggles with identifying cases where the pregnant woman’s interests and/or behaviors might put her fetus at risk. Criminal and/or civil commitments should be used to bar pregnant women from exposing their fetuses to risk.

The Queens District Attorney’s Office charged the Swinton’s with first-degree assault, claiming the parents knew or should have known the diet would endanger IIce’s life. Also they had failed to seek medical attention. The opposing side’s lawyer argued that IIce being premature was the main cause of IIce’s medical state. The Swinton’s argued they did care for their child, they did not intentionally harm her and should not be deprived of their parental rights. The jury of the New York Supreme Court found the Swinton’s guilty of first-degree assault as well as lesser charges of reckless endangerment and endangerment of the welfare of a child to the first-degree.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

The Partial Abortion Act was brought to the attention of the courts in 2003. Before this law, the method for abortion, usually during the fifth month or later, was partially delivering the baby alive before the skull was injured. The spinal cord was “snipped” by the physician, and the baby was killed. This gruesome act was being performed daily by physicians. This law recognized that the fetus was now a different “being” than the mother, instituting of murder, because the fetus was partially delivered alive, then killed by severing the spinal cord. (The National Right to Life Committee Incorporated, 2014).

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

In cases where a mother’s life is in jeopardy, and caused by her pregnancy, Thomson argues that it would not be called murder for the mother to kill the fetus in order for the mother to save her own life (267). Thomson uses the analogous situation of the violinist in order to portray her argument. If it would not be wrong for you

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

Abortion, the “early ending of a pregnancy” (“Abortion - Topic Overview” 1), was and remains a controversial topic all across the world. Most states, such as Texas, had made abortions illegal. However, Norma L. McCorvey was a Texas resident with an unwanted pregnancy. “At the time, Texas law only allowed for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother” (“On This Day” 1). With this, McCorvey was forced to give birth to a child she truthfully did not want; she could not afford to travel to a state where abortion was legal. Therefore, McCorvey, using the alias Jane Roe, sued a man named Henry Wade, a Dallas County State Attorney, who enforced the law of abortion.

According to the Pleading Men and Virtuous Women article it states, “In this case, the man has voided any possible claim he has to the fetus when he decided to impose his will violently upon the woman against her consent. The violence done unto her nullifies any requirement on her to regard the man’s feelings or interests concerning the termination of the fetus” (Manninen 11). When a rapist violates a woman’s autonomy, he invalidates his reasoning to have a say in the decision of terminating the fetus. If the rapist’s desire was to have the female carry the embryo to term, the female would be obligated to proceed with an abortion. In the Decision To Abort article it states, “Because of its origin, this fetus is not a legitimate object of interest for the rapist and hence is not his. Consequently, if she decides to abort, she doesn't harm the rapist in anyway” (Hanrahan 28). Obtaining an abortion for the sake of the mother does not violate the rapist’s autonomy. Terminating the pregnancy does not result in any harm done to the rapist by the mother. The offspring is not considered to be the rapist’s because it is a result of an unlawful interest for him nor is it the mothers because she did not pursue her interest in a morally legitimate way. The Decision To Abort article states, “What we learn from this case is that if a fetus is the product of someone's illegitimate pursuits, then the fetus shouldn't be considered that person's” (Hanrahan 28). When a man pursues his