Killing Acts - Murder and Manslaughter - Essay Example

Murder and Manslaughter Introduction Many nations group the killing act in two broad categories known as manslaughterand murder. Manslaughter is applicable where the criminal is less culpable and frequently turns the individuals state of mind. It is also relevant in considering the circumstances that contributed to the wrongful killing. However, it differs from one country to another, murder under the law of English is considered as such when the perpetrator has an intention to kill and cause bodily harm that may lead to death. In addition, Manslaughter is also found in certain situations where the offender had no plans to kill but was negligent in some manner. Also in the situation where the offender caused death in the process of doing an act that is illegal. On the other hand, murder is applied where an individual is of sound mind killing another person in any country unlawfully with malice ambitions. The act is premeditated as demonstrated by the party or implied by law where the person wounded may die within the same day or year 1. To conclude that an individual should be held under Acts Reus, the first thing to be considered is the unlawful killing and the act of the offender has to be the set up cause of death of the victim. The killing has to be of another human being and under the Queen’s peace which means that killing of an enemy in war is not considered as murder. More so, the death after the same year and day has been omitted in the reform law act of the year 19962 . Mens Rea Under the Mens Rea, there is the afterthought malice in R v Moloney (1985), the House of Lords came to a conclusion that nothing less than the intention to cause bodily harm or to kill would be seen afterthought. Especially after foreseeing that the death of the victim as probably was not very sufficient. Under the Mens Rea, there are two things to be considered, first, the intention to kill where murder is discovered at a crime of specific intent should be considered. The intent in the case oblique or direct. In the event of the direct purpose, the criminal desired the death. In direct, the death is seen by the offender as directly individual. However, it is not for its sake. The other thing is that the intention to cause very great bodily harm that was accepted under a mans real for murder because the offender was willing to cause severe body damage. Also, injury of the body that is intentional is enough evidence that a victim could die. Intention In the scenario where Anthony the political activist who puts the bombs to get attention for what he was lobbying against about the genetically modified crops. In reality, so many considerations could be discovered in the case. The first thing, in order for an individual to identify the statute to prosecute, also the intention behind the crime should be considered. From the case, it is clearly pointed out that the real purpose of Anthony was to be heard. It was also to attract attention to his primary cause that was to lobby against genetically modified foods. The first bomb was set to go off at three AM on a Sunday specifically on a quiet street3. On a very scrutiny, the offender did not have any intention to kill as he chose a time that people are not likely to be found in the streets. The street was also silent and isolated. In reality, if the offender could have any intention to kill people he would have chosen a road that is very busy and when it is likely to have many people using the road. In such a case, there is no evidence of the offender trying to cause bodily harm or death. In addition, the offender did not mean to cause death or injury to the police officer who was there doing patrols in the line of his duty. According to the case, the death of the policeman could be considered as manslaughter. It could be regarded as such, as it was unlawful killing of another person without intention. Unlike the situation of real homicide that is voluntary, the crime of the offender did not result from willingness but from the care or improper use in the process of committing acts that are unlawful. In the law, there exist three types of involuntary manslaughter. There is the Criminal negligence manslaughter, the subjective recklessness manslaughter, and illegal act manslaughter4. The Criminal negligence manslaughter is when the death of a victim results from the high degree negligence or recklessness. Also, the offender sees a risk as a possible consequence of his act and still takes the risk of all situations. In the first killing case committed by Anthony, his intention was not to murder the police officer who was in the patrol the very day. It will be unreasonable for him to do that. In the first case to be committed by him, the intention of the offender was not to kill the police officer. It was premeditated because all he wanted was to gain attention of his activism. For this reason the case can be taken as an involuntary manslaughter since the wrongful thinking was done in the process of committing another unlawful act, that was bombed. The action could be considered as unlawful act manslaughter5. Case study, R v Woolin (1999) AC 82 House of Lords In the unlawful killing of an individual in the actors rise as a result of omission or an act by the offender. Normally, the Mens rea for murder is malice intent or an afterthought. The intention can either be direct, indirect or oblique. Many cases of death fall under the direct purpose and are typically discovered since the offender, his or her intentions very clear. According to the case of Woolin, the father of the son lost his temper that led him to pick up his son, throwing the boy across the wall. Finally, the boy landed on a surface where he injured his skull and unfortunately died. The father of the son argued he had no intention of killing his son or causing any harm to the son6. The court found the father guilty because he should have discovered that the risk would lead to severe injury to the boy and in such a situation there was an intention to inflict harm on the child. In addition, in that case, there was an intention to cause harm to the body of the boy. However, the offender appealed, and the House of Lords decided that the murder charge was to be taken as manslaughter. The reason was that there was a material misdirection that further facilitated mens rea of murder. In that case, the conviction of murder was out of the question. Usually the actions of the offender are enough to demonstrate intention or motive, but it is always when in real sense they do not. It is the jury that dealt with the issue of intention since it was not very clear in the case. The main question in the case was the jury, and the aim was directed to set up whether the serious harm or death inflicted was an essential certainty and if the offender had set up that as the case7. The Case of Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163 The case was an example of manslaughter. In the case the offender threw a box into the sea of Brighton at the same process he hit a swimmer and led to his death. In a way of evaluating the case, it was an unlawful killing that includes to an offense that is criminal. More so the intention of the offender was not to kill. Identifying the purpose is the guide to set up if Anthony should have been tried for manslaughter or murder. It is very clear beyond reasonable doubt that the offender had no any intention to kill the police officer8. Dias (2002) 2 Cr App Rep 96 Considering the case, both Edward Escott and the appellant were addicted to drugs, they pooled their cash and purchased heroin $ 10. The offences came up with a solution of the heroin and issued the syringe to the victim who eventually injected himself and died. The judges decided that the cat of self-injection with the heroin was an act that is unlawful. In addition the judges also added that abetting and aiding such an offence would make offender liable for his mistake as a second party to the act that is unlawful which contributed to the death of the victim by the name Escott9. The court decided that the offender was guilty of manslaughter. The condition was similar like in the case of Dias (2002) 2 Cr App Rep 96 where the appellant came up with a solution of the heroin and gave it to a fellow resident in the same hostel who injected himself and finally died. The offender was charged with supplying drugs that are categorized as class A and manslaughter that is unconstructive10. However, the offender appealed on the ground that there lacked a direct link that is a casual connection between the unlawful act of the death of the victim and supplying the drug. The appeal was cancelled, and the conviction was upheld. In the case, the act where the act was unlawful, and the victim was injecting himself with the heroin that was aided by the accused. In addition, the injection in the case was the prime cause of the death of the victim11. Lamb (1957) 2 QB 981 In the above case, the two boys were playing with a revolver that had two bullets in the chamber, but neither of them was opposite in the barrel. Due to their nature of being young they thought that the gun could not fire weapons. One of the children pointed the gun to the other boy and fired. The chamber turned as the child pulled the trigger and in the process killing the other kid. He was eventually charged with manslaughter. However, the court came to the decision that there was no unlawful act since the offender was not aware that the gun would go off and in the situation it could not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence12. The case could be applied to the situation of Anthony since the second bombing where he had placed the explosives under another r car that was parked in front of a department store. Usually the departmental store was closed on Mondays and the bomb was set to explode on Monday and especially in the afternoon. The bomb led to the death of Richard, who was a homeless person and was sheltering from the rain13. It can be reasoned that Anthony had envisioned a proper place and time where there would be no human being anywhere in the vicinity. More so the departmental store was usually closed at that time on Mondays. For this reason, Anthony was not aware that the homeless man could be around in the area at the date of the explosion of the bomb14. The Law Reform Act (1996) The refrm states that death was not murder if it occurred more than a day or year after the Act and so is the case of Anthony. The intention of Anthony was not to inflict harm on the homeless person who eventually died. There was no virtue certainty. In addition, the case differs slightly from the first instance. It can also be discovered as a reckless manslaughter that is subjective because the offender had committed the first act of killing. As a result, the offender should be aware that in the act of setting up a second bomb could likely contribute to the death of another person. After the offender knew that fact, he ignored it and went ahead and planted a bomb that caused death to another individual15. Kimsey (1996) and Pagett (1983) In the case of Kimsey (1996) two girls were racing their cars dangerously and one died, it was decided that it was manslaughter. In the case of Pagett (1983) A man was being followed by police and was hiding in a flat with his pregnant girlfriend. The girl was shot by mistake and died. The man was found guilty of manslaughter. Considering the second case, apart from manslaughter Anthony was also charged with the criminal act damage of 1971. The reason is that he destroyed property unlawfully that belonged to another are individual, and he had an intention to cause damage by use of the explosives. He acted in a reckless manner as it can be reasoned that since the likely damage to the property after the bomb was apparent, and he still went ahead to take the risk. The act of criminal damage states that to be found guilty under the law. Also in the action an individual must have caused damage to the property that belongs to another person and the harm caused was unlawful, and there was an intention to cause the recklessness or damage16. Under the other section of the same act, it would be considered as an offense to destroy the property of an individual and intending to endanger the life of another person or the act of being reckless and the life of another person in danger17. Chesire (1991) In the case D shot V in the leg and stomach during an argument. V died after two months due to heart attack. D was convicted of murder. The case is more likely similar to that of Anthony since D had no intentions to kill therefore Anthony could be charged with murder. Cunningham (1956). In the case V was attacked by D in a pub and eventually v died. D was charged with murder. It is evident that he had no intentions to kill. Therefore it had to be treated as manslaughter like in the case of Antony who also had no intentions to kill. AG’s Reference (1998) D stabbed his girlfriend who was pregnant. The recovered but later she gave birth to a premature baby and the baby died. D was charged with manslaughter. Considering the case of Anthony and AG’s reference both had no intentions to kill and therefore the case is manslaughter. Church 1966 The dead body of Mrs. Nott was found a few yards of the van of the defendant near the bank. The defendant was charged with manslaughter since he threw a dead body near the bank and he was not the one who killed her. It resembles the case of Anthony since he put the bombs at a time where there were no people. R v Good fellow (1986) The defendant deliberately bombed his own house with an intention to be given another house by the council. His children and wife were in house at the moment and they all died. He was charged with manslaughter since like Anthony he had no intentions of killing anyone. Dpp v Newbury and Jones (1977) The defendants threw a piece of paving stone from a railway bridge onto apassing train. The object killed a guard who was sitting near the driver. The defendants were charged with manslaughter since they had no intentions to kill which could be compared to the case of Anthony. Case study R v. R and G The case involved two boys who were 11 and 12 years of age, and they went for a night camping without the permission of their parents. In the event of camping the two boys found some old papers that they lit outside the cooperative and threw it into a wheelie bin. They positioned them out because they thought they would go out naturally18. The articles caused a lot of fire which extended to the co-op shop. It destroyed property that was worth over a million pounds. The conviction of the offender was overturned. In the third situation of the bombing by Anthony, that he placed it in a litter bin on Dean’s gate that was also set to go off at a similar time19. Considering the case, two people could be found liable for the wrongful death. Firstly Antony could be convicted of manslaughter, and the doctor who could not identify the ruptured spleen of the victim could also be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter20. Conclusion. Many nations group the killing act in two broad categories known as manslaughter and murder. Manslaughter is applicable where the criminal is less culpable and frequently turns the individuals state of mind. Under the Mens Rea, there is the afterthought malice in R v Moloney (1985); the House of Lords came to a conclusion that nothing less than the intention to cause bodily harm or to kill would be seen afterthought especially after foreseeing that the death of the victim as probably was not very sufficient21. Under the Mens Rea, there are two things to be considered, first and foremost, the intention to kill where murder is discovered at a crime of specific intent should be considered22. The intention of Anthony was not to inflict harm on the homeless person who eventually died. There was no virtue certainty. In addition, the case differs slightly from the first instance. It can also be discovered as a reckless manslaughter that is subjective because the offender had committed the first act of murder23. Considering the fact two people could be found liable for the wrongful death. Firstly Antony could be convicted of manslaughter, and the doctor who could not identify the ruptured spleen of the victim could also be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter24. In addition, the case of Anthony differs slightly from the first instance. It can also be discovered as a reckless manslaughter that is subjective because the offender had committed the first act of killing25. Reference List Ashworth, Andrew, and Barry Mitchell. Rethinking English Homicide Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Baker, Dennis. Textbook of Criminal Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011. Print. Bedau, Hugo A. The Case against the Death Penalty. New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1984. Print. Bellamy, John G. The Criminal Trial in Later Medieval England: Felony Before the Courts from Edward I to the Sixteenth Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Print. Bridge, John W. United Kingdom Law in the Mid-1990s: Common Law Studies for the With International Congress of Comparative Law. London: UKNCCL, 1994. Print. Christie, Agatha. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. S.l.: HarperCollins, 2009. Internet resource. Criminal Statistics, England and Wales. London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1928. Print. Cross, Noel. Criminal law & criminal justice an introduction. Los Angeles London: SAGE, 2010. Print. Dressler, Joshua, and Stephen P. Garvey. Cases and Materials on Criminal Law. , 2012. Print. Entorf, Horst, Entorf-Spengler, and Hannes Spengler. Crime in Europe: Causes and Consequences ; with 80 Tables. Berlin [u.a.: Springer, 2002. Print. Gaskill, Malcolm. Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. Liem, Marieke. Handbook of European Homicide Research: Patterns, Explanations and Country Studies. New York: Springer, 2011. Print. Marshall, David. Effective Investigation of Child Homicide and Suspicious Deaths. , 2012. Print. Monaghan, Nicola. Criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Monckton, Smith J. Murder, Gender and the Media: Narratives of Dangerous Love. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Print. Morrall, Peter. Murder and Society. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Internet resource. Morris, Terence, and Louis J. Bloom-Cooper. Fine Lines and Distinctions: Murder, Manslaughter and the Unlawful Taking of Human Life. Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Waterside Press, 2011. Internet resource. Morrison, Helen; G. H. My Life Among the Serial Killers. S.l.: HarperCollins, 2009. Internet resource. Petherick, Wayne. Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Behavioural Profiling. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, 2009. Internet resource. Ratcliffe, Jerry, and Spencer Chainey. Gis and Crime Mapping. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2013. Internet resource. Simester, A P, and G R. Sullivan. Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine. Oxford: Hart, 2004. Print. Smartt, Ursula. Law for Criminologists: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications, 2008. Internet resource. Studies in the Causes of Delinquency and the Treatment of Offenders. London, 1955. Print. The New Law Journal. London: Butterworth, 1965. Print. Wolfgang, Marvin E. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Montclair, N.J: Patterson Smith, 1975. Print. Read More