Talk:Manslaughter

Australian negligent homicide?

Who put in that comment that Australian law does not recognize criminally negligent homicide? It most assuredly does. Queensland does not recognize recklessness as part of the fault element for murder (but Vic and NSW do). - Richardcavell 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me but I am not quite sure how Australian law works. Do I understand you to say that Australian law units charge "criminally negligent homicide" or "reckless homicide" rather than murder or manslaughter? if so, I think you should be adding this material to the homicide page rather than confusing foreigners on this manslaughter page. David91 17:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Recklessness is sufficient for a charge of murder in Victoria and NSW, but not in Qld. 'Criminally negligent homicide', so far as I'm aware, is simply a description of involuntary manslaughter.

So should this geographical explanation of recklessness not be on the murder page rather than the manslaughter page? And, if the charge of "criminally negligent homicide" is unknown to Australian law, perhaps you could change the wording in the article to refer to manslaughter. David91 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Animal manslaughter

There are some cases of manslaughter that involve animals owned by another person attacking another. So can this page have that type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:C9BF:68BA:916A:35A0 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Mens Rea

Mens rea is not the latin for "guilty mind". Mens means "mind", but rea comes from the root "res" which means thing. Thus, literally translated, mens rea means "mind directed towards the thing". A more succinct definition, and the one which is most commonly used is, "intention". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.129.137 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, reus is a distinct word from res. The Online English to Latin to English Dictionary defines reus as "defendant, accused, answerable, bound". --Trovatore 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

US law

I'd like to see some more on US law in regards to Manslaughter. The Jade Knight 20:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The section on US law seems hopeless given the wide state-by-state variation, of which nothing is mentioned. I'm especially suspicious of the equation of manslaughter with criminally negligent homicide. If we're to believe the usually well-researched show Law and Order, New York has two degrees of murder, two of manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide, which is a lesser offense than manslaughter. It might be correct for Texas, which I think (based just on newspaper articles when I lived there) has a much simpler scheme with only three offenses, called capital murder, murder, and criminally negligent homicide. --Trovatore 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In Texas a person is guilty of manslaughter if he or she "recklessly causes the death of an individual." Tex. Penal Code @ 19.05 (2005). A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide if he or she "causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence." Tex. Penal Code @ 19.06 (1005). Manney 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As a Brit my first reaction to the article was that it is too focused on US law, despite the odd reference to English and Scottish law (I believe the term originated at the end of the 16th century because so many people were being killed in London pub brawls). There is so much variation in individual implementations of manslaughter law that it doesn't make sense to try to document any of them. The article should be shortened, concentrating on the central concept of manslaughter, but a section dealing with the evolution of the legal concept should be added. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with "Voluntary Manslaughter"

I support that suggestion. The existing article for voluntary manslaughter needs to be heavily revised and shortened, then merged. --Miss Dark 1:02, 24 July 2006

I agree, merge the articles Manney 14:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps clarification to the law(s)of Involuntary Manslaughter, Vehicular Manslaughter or any other relevant law which may or may not apply to government employees, such as state police troopers through vehicular negligent cases which results in death while on duty, is needed. This, which should be addressed and is necessary to support current favortism accusations from my county's general public! Is there anyone out there interested in this one? It is the morality of law that is involved, not the law or situation itself. Jeffrey Feigers of the world, get ready for this one.... To learn more, research the Trooper Sweenie case in Michigan's Sanilac County, the heart of Sandusky. The October 10the edition of the Sanilac County News finalizes the long over due decision of the investigation. A wife and two small children are waiting for you.

• Oppose Two different things.--Chilifix 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I just added a redirect from nonegligent manslaughter which the FBI uses in its Uniform Crime Reports and is confusing to laymen. This article explains it. Americasroof 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, the section in this article on volunatry manslaughter is much better than the whole article, which looks like a junior high book report.Mneumisi 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it...

Who drops a brick off a damn bridge!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.253.86 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

There was a case of exactly that, some years ago in the Netherlands. I'm not going to look it up but I'm quite sure it happened; somebody got killed in a car accident caused by some youngsters dropping bricks off a bridge. I also recall that they got a ridiculously small sentence: six years jail or something, which in practice probably means they're not in jail as of this day. Wouter Lievens 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been several cases of it. What I'm wondering is whether someone's guilty of a crime if they throw bricks off a bridge and fail to cause any damage despite a considerable probability of doing so. Any ideas? 82.24.189.88 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Man's LAughter

Could it mention the fact that if you read it wrong it is Man's Laughter and alot of young people read it this way.

And has there been any discussion over whether the term is sexist and should be referred to as "personslaughter" instead? --Denise from the Cosby Show 04:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If there has been then I'm sure that the term 'Reasonable Man' will have been questioned under the same item.

Less than negligence?

What exactly would be involuntary manslaughter that isn't exactly negligence? For example:

What if a man is on a ladder and his partner is standing beside it, and a loud noise distracts the man on the ground and as he turns around to look, he accidentally knocks the ladder over with a protruding body part while the other man is on it? Would that be able to be called negligence or would it be considered a less serious offense, as it was merely a "fatal accident"?

GaeMFreeK 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends how tall the ladder is, I suppose. Negligence in criminal law, according to its own article here on Wikipedia, defines itself as 'careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant'. It's unlikely in the example that you give that someone would find negligence. Accident is far more likely. If, for example, the man was standing on a 20ft ladder, which his friend had set up precariously (and unsafely) on top of a brick wall, but never turned his mind to the fact that it's a bit stupid to balance ladders on top of brick walls, and his friend fell off and died, that would be involuntary manslaughter. LudBob 04:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludbob has posed a fine answer I think. Though one might consider "simple negligence" a less culpable mental state than criminal negligence. Criminal negligence, as Ludbob correctly states, usually requires a gross deviation from reasonable standards of care. Simple negligence, on the other hand, requires only a deviation from the reasonable standard of care. Simple negligence is essentially the same standard as civil negligence, and as such is only very rarely used in criminal proceedings. The only example that I've come across is in United States v. Robertson, 37 M.J. 432 (1993). So GaemFreeK's proposed scenario would be less than criminal negligence, but could possibly be prosecuted as simple negligence. Though the way the scenario is constructed looks like an accident and thus would most likely never be tried in either the civil or criminal context. Verkhovensky (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete defense?

What does the term 'complete defense' mean? Is there also something called an incomplete defense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.252.217 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It means that the defendant, even though he may actually have done the illegal act, is completely acquitted of the crime and the jury return a verdict of "Not Guilty". A legally insane defendant will still be incarcerated (in a mental institution) after the trial, of course, but he's not officially a criminal. The alternative is usually called a "partial defence"; the defendant is still convicted (and punished), but for a less serious offence than the one he was originally charged with. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct legalese, or sloppy wording?

"Diminished Responsibility is another defense to murder that will negate the charge down."

This sentence bothers me. To "negate the charge down" doesn't sound like proper English, but perhaps it's common usage in the law?

Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Involuntary Manslaughter Section

This whole section seems a bit messy. I don't know about American law or any other jurisdiction but in English Law involuntary manslaughter is not just gross negligence manslaughter, but also constructive manslaughter which includes recklessness. If this division is reflected in other jurisdictions it would be useful to split the section into 'negligence in manslaughter' and 'constructive malice in manslaughter' (which would include misdemeanor and constructive manslaughter and recklessness). At the moment these two concepts are mixed and a bit confusing. Jonny1047 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is definitely a mess. We don't have criminally negligent manslaughter in California, we have only voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, first-degree murder, and first-degree murder with special circumstances. Unfortunately I am way too busy to spend the six or so hours it would take to clean up this mess. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is still in poor shape, but I'm hesitant to make significant changes without more knowledge of comparative manslaughter law.2601:401:503:62B0:F934:FB9B:5081:2006 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename Article and Delete English References

This article appears to be one about the US laws into which the English version (which appears to be mainly repetition) has been introduced. It would tidy things up if the English references were removed (and transferred to Manslaughter in English law if missing from there). It suffers from the common problem of a matter which exists in more than one country but is not uniform across those countries being allowed to develop without necessary national qualification and seperation; renaming to e.g. Manslaughter (United States Law) with appropriate entries in the disambiguation page (to distinct English Law, US Law etc. or other comparable nation-specific articles) should untangle the current mess. --MBRZ48 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)--MBRZ48 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify self-defense

In the article it now says:

• Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the United States, self-defense is a complete defense to murder.

This appears to claim that there are US juridictions where lethal self-defense is illegal. I find this hard to believe and suspect it's just a dangling modifier: I think the intention is to say that although self-defense is a complete defense to murder, in a limited number of jurisdictions imperfect self-defense is a crime. But, having no expertise on this subject, I won't actually edit it to say so. --64.231.232.111 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what this means is that when you prove imperfect self defense, you cannot be convicted of murder (first or second degree), but can be convicted of manslaughter. Lethal self defense is indeed illegal, if it's disproportionate to the danger it is seeking to defend against - that disproportionality is what makes it imperfect. I think it means what you think it does - in some jurisdictions self defense is a complete defense, disproportionate or not, and in others the disproportionate defender can still be convicted of manslaughter. Verkhovensky (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Florida law in lead

I removed a long block of text referencing specific Florida law from the lead, but I just noticed there was a previous revert along these lines. I stand by the removal as correct, but I think the info could be put back into the body of the article—it's just not immediately clear how that could be done.Belovedeagle (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I again removed a block of text about a very specific Florida law from the lead that was not discussed in the body of the article, and moved it to the U.S. law subsection. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Splitting article

I suggest the creation of a Manslaughter (United States law) article similar to Murder (United States law) by moving the existing material from this article to a new one (and adding new material in time). In regard to English law, there is already the Manslaughter in English law article, and most of what is in this article is duplicated there; and this article is also outdated since if fails to discuss the replacement of the "provocation" defense with a "loss of control" defense. A Manslaughter (Australian law) could also be interesting, especially in the light of recent legal reforms and controversies. This article should only be a general overview (including common law history) and discussing ethical issues (eg murder vs manslaughter).2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:ABA0 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start to reorganize this article. I'm going to start by changing the order of the sections by having the general 'Voluntary manslaughter' section (with subsection 'Infanticide') first; then the section 'Involuntary manslaughter' (with subsections 'Constructive manslaughter', 'Criminally negligent manslaughter' , 'Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter' and 'Assisted suicide'); and then a section called 'United States laws' dealing with specific laws. The current subsections about English laws will be redirected to Manslaughter in English law for the reasons explained above.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:9FE4 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I implemented the changes.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:9FBF (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy: Voluntary/Involuntary Charges

I would like to know if someone could be charged with involuntary manslaughter after being acquitted on charges of murder and/or voluntary:aggravated manslaughter. I know the basics of Double Jeopardy, but murder, voluntary, and involuntary manslaughter are 3 very different charges. Casey Anthony is one example. She was charged with 1st degree murder and aggravated mans. and was acquitted. Considering her explanation of her daughters death, which made up her entire defense would be grounds for involuntary manslaughter charges, could they be filed after the case ended? And what if she was originally charged with only murder 1 and acquitted. Considering her defense, could she then be charged with manslaughter, or would that fall under Double J., because it is a similar charge (filed after her acquittal) based on the same event? Or would the manslaughter charges only be acceptable if filed in tandem with the murder charges? I have looked at many websites and Wiki sites with little to no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frandsenac (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Consider Renaming This Article Manslaughter (United Kingdom)

This article discusses manslaughter from the standpoint of the law of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations, but not the United States. From the prior comments on the Talk page, it is clear that U.S. law was previously part of this page but was split off to its own page named Manslaughter (United States). The title of Manslaughter should likewise be clarified, such as Manslaughter (United Kingdom), as the current title is misleading. Sokolesq (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there is already an article - Manslaughter in English law. This article is supposed to be a general presentation of the legal concept of Manslaughter in different jurisdictions. The article is very messy and needs a re-write; but as it is currently it doesn't only describe the law in the UK - other jurisdictions are included- so it can't be named 'Manslaughter (United Kingdom)'.

Problem with biblical reference in the first paragraph

The biblical reference in the first paragraph claims the manslaughter passages from the Book of Numbers and the Book of Deuteronomy predate the 7th century BC writings of Draco. To quote:

"The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C.. However, Biblical references were made prior to this that differentiate unintentional killing due to accident, and premeditated killing."

However, as can be seen in the overview section on each book, Torah scholars mostly agree that while Numbers and Deuteronomy probably existed as drafts in the 8th century BC, they didn't reach their present forms until around the end of the 5th century BC. Should not the biblical reference in the first paragraph be modified until evidence is presented that the biblical manslaughter passages existed in drafts prior to Dracos writings?TheAlmightyGuru (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there sources making the latter distinction? If so, then I would change it to say:

The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C..[ref] Biblical references in Numbers and Deuteronomy also differentiate unintentional killing due to accident, and premeditated killing, although the date of their authorship is disputed.[ref]

Cheers! bd2412 T 16:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Man 2

I've received a notice pursuant to WP:DABMENTION. Can we find sources for the use of slang term "man 2" for second-degree manslaughter? I've heard it at least in Law & Order. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article called man 2, so I'm not sure why we would need disambiguation. But it seems too trivial to redirect here. Just my instant reaction. --Trovatore (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that the above comment was almost a year old. Probably not a live question. Never mind. --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you call someone who commits manslaughter

Manslaughter is different to murder because manslaughter is when you kill someone by accident while murder is when you kill someone on purpose. Someone who commits murder is called a murderer then what do you call someone who commits manslaughter. 2.29.250.239 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)