Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
116,964
edits
Three Degrees of Murder: Difference between revisions
trope->useful notes
m (revise quote template spacing) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (trope->useful notes) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{quote|HOMICIDE, n.
The slaying of one human being by another. There are four kinds of homocide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain whether he fell by one kind or another -- the classification is for advantage of the lawyers.|[[Ambrose Bierce]], ''[[The Devil's Dictionary|The Devils Dictionary]]''}}
Line 6:
I hollered 'Lordy, Lordy, have mercy on me!'"|[[Johnny Cash]], ''Cocaine Blues''}}
Homicide, '''in the American legal system''', falls into a variety of categories. In the appropriate shows, you will hear references to first-degree murder very often, and second-degree murder quite often. "Third-degree" murder may come up, or may be referred to as "manslaughter" (which can be "voluntary" or "involuntary"). Usually no relation to the [[Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon]].
Mr. Bierce's definition above is outdated but still correct on one point: in all cases, the end result is that the victim died as the result of the actions of another (if there is no cause-and-effect link whatsoever between one's actions and another's demise, what you have on your hands is not a homicide). Where things get ''interesting'' is the state of mind (''mens rea'') that went into the actions of another.
Line 17:
* "Third-degree" murder is either manslaughter, or lower-degree murder in states that call the higher-degree murder with aggravating factors "first degree murder". Depending on local laws, prosecutor zealousness, prison overcrowding, caseload, the notoriety of the case, [[Acceptable Targets|and the victim]], the penalties at this level might vary between very serious (forty years isn't life, but it's still a long time) and alarmingly non-existent (there are jurisdictions that give probation for these crimes).
The higher-degree murder is based on the most criminally guilty state of mind, ''intent''. In a classical definition, expect to hear phrases like "by poison" or "by lying in wait"; these phrases are at times buried deep within the law, but they are true classics. Many jurisdictions dating back to English common law require that this level of state of mind be demonstrated through premeditation, but this doesn't necessarily mean what you think: some appellate courts have the opinion that premeditation can be basically instantaneous (i.e., between the time you put your finger on the trigger and the time you pull it). Also, as far as the law is concerned, it does not matter [[Murder by Mistake|who you intended to kill]]; if you intended to kill, and someone died, it still counts as first degree murder.
Line 35:
For extra credit, these count in some jurisdictions, too:
* Bob testifies that Alice killed Charlie. Alice is executed for the murder of Charlie. It turns out that Alice was innocent and Bob perjured himself, and while Bob didn't kill Charlie either,<ref>if Bob ''DID'' kill Charlie, then we'd just start by charging Bob for the murder of Charlie, but we could still nail Bob on this one, too</ref>
Some US states employ the death penalty. Since the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases on exactly how the death penalty can ''not'' be applied, only a very few methods are left by process of elimination.
Formerly, ''any'' murder cases would be eligible for the death penalty, with the judge (or jury, depending on jurisdiction) deciding whether a given case merited capital punishment. The Supreme Court noted that this tended to cause certain inconsistencies, and required that if states were going to have a death penalty, they would have to have clear guidelines on what sorts of murders qualified for the death penalty. Not every American state has a death penalty, and many which legally allow for a death penalty have not in fact ever used it since capital punishment was reinstated in America in 1976, but those that do must delineate between degree murders that cannot receive the death penalty and those that ''might''. These are called "aggravating factors" and '''must''' come from a legally defined list; they are balanced by "mitigating factors", which state laws can suggest but can be open to anything the jury is willing to consider.
Line 50:
* Bob murders Alice, while Bob was already in prison for another serious offense.
* Bob murders Alice, and Bob had previously been convicted for murdering Charlie.
* Bob murders Alice because there's money in it for him somehow.<ref>this is intentionally very broad. Bob could be getting insurance money or an inheritance, or maybe Bob is a contract killer</ref>
* Bob murders Alice, and in the process very nearly killed Charlie.
* Bob murders Alice, and did so in such a way that local juries would consider "heinous, cruel, or depraved".
Line 59:
* Bob murders Alice, using a weapon that is a felony in and of itself just for Bob to have in the first place.
Additionally, since the abolition of the three-judge panel in ''Ring v. Arizona'', the only constitutionally permissible method for imposition of the death penalty is in a bifurcated trial. This means that, after the jury has entered a verdict of "guilty" for a first-degree murder
As an aside note, with any trial that could be bifurcated, the prosecution must announce in advance whether they will seek the death penalty. That means, at the time of juror selection, the prosecution must account for the fact that any jurors selected to decide whether the defendant is guilty must also be able to "impartially" decide whether the defendant, if guilty, should die. A potential juror who is capable of being impartial about guilt, yet is opposed to the death penalty on principle, must therefore be disqualified. The resulting jury, consisting only of jurors willing to impose the death penalty if it comes up, is called "death-qualified"; and studies show that death-qualified juries are more willing to convict on the same evidence than non-"death-qualified" juries. Take from that what lesson you will.
This one varies by jurisdiction. The basic "rule" is that, if while committing any other felony, someone dies as a result of the crime, everyone involved in the felony can be considered culpable for the death of that person as a murder.
* Bob and Charlie plan to rob a bank. Alice, the teller, sounds an alarm. Charlie panics and shoots Alice dead. Bob can be charged under the felony murder rule. If Bob doesn't want to risk life in prison or possibly lethal injection over Charlie's stupidity, his best option is to immediately turn on Charlie, abandon the crime, and surrender to the authorities at once, which may cover him from the felony murder but not from the robbery.
Line 72:
* In the above bank robbery scenario, Joe gets scared and has a heart attack and dies. Bank Robbers Charlie and Bob can be charged with Felony Murder.
Something along the lines of intent is missing. In jurisdictions where the "instantaneous premeditation" reasoning is not acceptable, the murder may have been in "the heat of the moment" (which ''will'' mean different things in different jurisdictions to different judges). Alternatively, the murderer may only have intended injury, but was a little too successful. It is not uncommon for people to be convicted of this degree of murder where the facts would seem to support a higher degree; this may be as a result of a plea bargain or because a jury chose to convict on a lesser offense (feeling that the killing, while wrong, wasn't ''that'' wrong, for instance).
* Bob becomes enraged at Alice, and shoots her dead on the spot. The court ''may'' find Bob guilty of this degree of murder.
Line 85:
*** Legally, the jury is not allowed to consider what ''might'' have happened to other people, only the facts in evidence. Realistically, juries ''do'' try the victim, all the time. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges all know this, though.
Someone died as a result of another's actions, but either there was no intent to kill/injure (not even "heat-of-the-moment" intent) or the prosecution doesn't think they can prove that intent (for example, being at fault in a car accident which ended up killing someone). This may be called "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter, or less classical terms such as "criminally negligent homicide". The fine points get very specific and technical, but for troper purposes, a manslaughter case will not usually come up in your average crime show because they are usually dramatically uninteresting (except for those directly impacted). Manslaughter will frequently show up in a Procedural, however, generally as part of a plea bargain (though sometimes the prosecutor will go for manslaughter if he doesn't think he can get the murder conviction).
| |||