Liability for Manslaughter - Case Study Example

Criminal Law Consider Joe's liability for manslaughter in the following separate circumstances. Joe is the father of Fern, who is 6 years old. Kelly is her mother. (A) Fern and Joe are out in the local town, visiting the shops. Fern repeatedly runs into the road and is in danger of being hit by vehicles. Joe warns her of the danger and repeatedly tells her not to do this. Finally, Joe loses his temper and hits* Fern. This results in Fern falling to the pavement and hitting her head, causing an injury from which she dies 2 weeks later. (* Assume for the purpose of this question that this constitutes an offence). (B) Kelly tells Joe that he is not the natural father of Fern. Joe loses his temper and strangles Kelly. In this paper I will identify the type of offences applicable to both cases; at the same time I will define what the offences are, and explain them with respected to the law, while indicating how the law applies in this case. In case A we have to deal with an offence. The offence is about Joe, Fern's father, who loses his temper over Fern not listening about the danger of being hit by the vehicles and pushes Fern. She hurts herself and dies. An offence, according to the law regulations is a "violation of the penal law" where penal law or criminal law is "the body of laws that are enforced by the State in its own name and impose penalties for their violation." Usually an offence can be either a traffic violation which would represent a misdemeanor or a capital murder which would represent a fellow. However, an offence is different from a crime in the fact that there's no typical victim, by "the action remains prohibited by statute." Nevertheless, in case A we are dealing with an offence called involuntary manslaughter. The reason is because in UK this is called "gross negligence" manslaughter because the intention was not to kill the victim; the result of the Fern's death, even thought was caused by being used and hurting her head, it is a case of death that resulted from "recklessness or criminal negligence." In the UK the liability for manslaughter due to recklessness is also defined as "wanton blinded ness" in which the culpable person refuses t be aware of the dangers of a particular situation. This applies to the Fern's case in which her father is unaware that by pushing her she could her herself which she did to the point of death. However, because there is no intent to kill the resulting death may not be considered a murder. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the culpable is free of the criminal negligence guilt in which he was aware of the potential dangers of his actions and still he decided to pursue them. Because of this the charge for Fern's father actions, although unintentionally may charge him with second degree murder. There is a little confusion that results from the first case. Specifically, "Manslaughter is any culpable homicide which is not murder or infanticide." On the other hand, Joe may have been charged with second degree murder, which is different from first degree murder in the sense that: "it was not planned or deliberate; it was not contracted; it was not committed against an identified peace officer; while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking; while committing criminal harassment,; Committed during terrorist activity, while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, and while committing intimidation. " Nevertheless, being considered second degree murder the penalty that usually applied to such cases is as follows: usually there is mandatory life imprisonment for 10 to 25 years without the possibility of parole; however, if the person convicted by personal injury offence means the statutory criteria he may be declared as a "dangerous offender", but his sentence may be reduced and the possibility of parole granted after 7 years. This does not apply in the second degree murder, unless the culpable person convicted of manslaughter which seems to be our case. In UK, "Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another person whether by act or omission either while committing an unlawful act (known as constructive manslaughter) or by gross negligence." In Case B, we learn that Kelly, Joe's wife, informs Fern that Joe is not her natural father; as a result Joe loses his temper and strangles. Kelly. In this situation we deal with what is called a voluntary manslaughter caused by provocation. Specifically, as a result of Kelly's telling, Joe, which may have been a reasonable person, has lost self-control and killed Kelly. In UK, provocation is "mitigator defense "proclaiming a total loss of control to another's person provocative conducts "sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It does not apply to any other offence." According to s3 Homicide Act 1957, the decision whether the provocation was enough to make a man lose his self-control is left to the jury. The burden however, is to raise evidence on how the case was prorogued. This does hot free the culpable person of the manslaughter, though. Regarding the sentencing the conclusion is the stronger the evidence that the murder was done as a result of provocation, the more the sentence may be "mitigated." In both case we deal with involuntary manslaughter. This is the result of the absence f the element of the murderous intent that distinguished between "the voluntary and the involuntary manslaughter. " As we have shows the manslaughter usually results from a not careful use of reasonable care or skill "while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious." We noticed that in UK this is defined as manslaughter due to gross negligence fact that does not impose on the court the necessity to prove that the act was intentional. Today many courts dealing with such situations consider that unintentional manslaughter where prorogued or not (in our case it was provoked by either Fern's refusal to listen to intentional dangers, or by Kelly's statement that Joe is not Fern's real father) consider the act leas grave than homicide. Another thing that fins itself at the grey border of intent is the idea of being provoked into committing an act. While some jurisdiction do distinguish between what it means to be provoked into committing a crime, some others jurisdictions choose to include he provoked act into voluntary manslaughter. However, the involuntary manslaughter still stands when it comes to gross negligence or reckless ness that we mentioned previously and that are the results of the culpable person not taking into considerations the potential risks of his actions. In conclusion, between both case A and B there exist similarities, but also differences. We notice that in case A, Joe, Fern's father, is constantly repeating to not run into the road so that she would not be hurt by the approaching vehicles. Fern decides to neglect that and choose to continue her actions until her father loses his temper and pushes her thus causing her death. Even though Fern is just a 6 years old girl, Joe appears to be provoked by Fern's disregard for his request. The same thing happens in case B. When Joe finds out that Kelly, his wife, as let Fern know that he is not his father, he loses his control over his actions and murders Kelly. Again we notice the provocation in this case two. It would have interesting to know how the case A and B connected if they did or if they were simple cases independent of each other. The reasons is that :does Fern disregard Joe's requirements of not staying on the road after she learns that he is not her father and things notice makes her mad in a way At the same time, what were Kelly's intentions by letting Fern know that Joe was not his father Did she want to provoke him; and let Fern know that she can do whatever she wants regardless Joe's advice What were her intentions behind all of this Both cases represent offences that in may or may not be considered voluntary manslaughter according to each country regulation. In the UK this appears to be involuntary manslaughter due to gross negligence of one person's actions and due to being provoked. Nevertheless, the law does not fail to apply as we have shown previously. Even if both cases represent offences, and involuntary manslaughter the verdict seem to be the one for the second degree murder and such as imprisonment with the possibility of parole after seven years. Works Cited Wikipedia, Offence Law, June 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offence_%28law%29. Answers.com, Involuntary Manslaughter, 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/manslaughter-2cat=biz-fin. Read More