I'm writing a short story and I need to know, what (if any) is the difference between being charged with attempted murder vs. attempted manslaughter? Is it the sentencing from the court that makes the difference?\nMany thanks ahead of time for answers.
200915
Murder implys intent or malice; manslaughter is legally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied.
255908
If the person actually died, the person could be charged with some level of murder or manslaughter. Otherwise, attempted murder would certainly be possible, especially if there was a lot of evidence that the person wanted the other person dead, or some sort of assault charge or wilfull poisoning. The exact charges would depend on the state, and for any of them to be succesfully prosecuted, the state would have to prove that the person knew that his/her friend was allergic to peanuts, which may not be easy to do.
445870
The Supreme Court held that "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ****except**** where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is ***likely*** to incite or produce such action. "\n\nThat means that the law is only operative where the criminal conduct is likely to succeed.  This stands in stark contrast to crimes of Attempt, which can be prosecuted even when the act attempted is impossible; for example, attempted Murder against a dead body that the Defendant does not know is dead. \n\nThis requirement that the violence be likely may well nullify the entire statute under the Void for Vagueness doctrine.  How are police supposed to know when it is likely to succeed?
52358
The difference is summed up in a single word: INTENT... if you intend on causing the death of someone (outside the Laws of Armed Conflict such as in a war) that is murder.  If a hammer slipped out of your hand while working on a roof and hit someone in the head and they died (assuming this was not your intention) that is not murder.
138824
OK, I have problems with this on several levels. For starters, who is stupid enough to sell a car to an underage kid who has no license or insurance? There may be liability on their part should the victim decide to press charges against them as well. As far as your "friend"...first, find a different friend because this one sounds like a thug and is bad news. Secondly, although it may depend on the state where you live, at 17 1/2 she could very likely be charged as an adult, especially considering the fact that she is a repeat offender due to the DUI (and I'll bet money she has a record for other things as well). There are other chargeable offenses here as well...no license, no insurance, unregistered car, and a minimum of assault and battery if the attempted murder charge doesn't stick, though it should- if your account of what happened is true. I would say I wish her luck, but frankly I don't. If what you say is accurate she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
55127
If you're planning on doing it - don't!  This is premeditated murder and the prosecutors will figure it out. \n\nBut if you're just wondering, or too lazy to do your criminal law homework, then it depends on the intent.  \n\nIf the guy is sober, and intentionally runs over a child, that's straight-up murder.  He will be raped by cellmates, beaten to a pulp, and get the needle in 20 years.\n\nIf the guy was only distracted - talking/arguing on the cell, looking at map, officiating fights of his own kids in the backseat, attacked by his Chihuahua, shot by Dick Cheney, etc., then we're talking about lesser degrees of murder.  Probably vehicular manslaughter and about 10 years or less.  \n\nNow, if the guy is drunk and runs over a kid, he's up for drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter.  In some states, there are special laws that make the sentence especially harsh.  This is because being drunk actually takes away the "intentional" part of the murder, but people decided that drunk driving and killing people is no less culpable.  \n\nSo...\n\n1) DON'T DO IT!\n2) Let me know if your law professor liked the answer; or \n3) Still wanna be a lawyer?
138007
No, it's fair to kill someone who is attempting to kill you. Once the danger passes, it becomes revenge, and revenge is not legally recognized as a justification for a homicide. You'll get more satisfaction out of the life you have left if you press charges for the assault and the theft, and keep a liberal distance from her in the future.
104289
Actually, you DO always die if you COMMIT suicide.  Otherwise it'd be 'attempted' suicide.  I guess the only crime is ATTEMPTED suicide.  If you actually commit it, I guess being dead is punishment enough, is it not?
492736
I received my concealed carry permit in the state of Arizona, and we discussed when taking another life is "justifiable"  here are some of the things we discussed.  If you approach any of the scenes mentioned, with your weapon drawn, and it elimiates the threat, ie the perpetrator leaves, then you are NOT JUSTIFIED to shoot.  However, if you approach, and the act continues, you are justified (in the state of arizona) to shoot to kill.\n\nCommission of Rape\nKidnapping\nArson to an occupied structure\nAnytime someone is within 21ft of you and closing, has a deadly weapon where if your weapon is not used, you may die\n\nAlong with a few others, however that last one is a biggie...if someone is charging you with a knife, you have a gun drawn, and they raise up to stab you, you are legal to kill.  Now lets say you come up on someone who is raping a woman, you draw your gun, and say hey stop what youre doing...they guys stands up and runs away.  Your weapon has eliminated the threat, and therefore, you are NOT justified to shoot to kill.\n\nAnother one is that you are walking down the street, you see 4 guys taking turns beating another guy.  Hes on the ground, defenseless, and clearly not putting up a fight.  They have bats or knives or some sort of weapon.  If you dont approach the situation, that person may die.  So you say, hey guys, dont you think hes had enough?  Leave him alone.  They turn around to you, and begin to approach you with bats/knives etc in hand, you draw your weapon.  If they begin to commence and attack, and are within 21ft of you, you shoot to kill the biggest one first I was told.  His buddies if they are smart, probably will not go after you.\n\nAlso what I found interesting is that it is illegal to shoot to mame, IE shoot to just hurt someone, shoot them in the leg etc...if you are going to fire on someone, you must shoot to kill.  If you are interested further, check out local gun laws, and get a concealed carry permit, they will review everything with you as to when you can or cannot fire on someone.
31262
the people have already done a good job answering the moral repricussions of the issue.. but didnt specifically answer your question..\n\nit would be very difficult to pin this kind of thing on someone.. its not murder because she did not cause the heart attack.. even if she jumped out and went "boo" its not murder.. as she has no control of the father's bodily functions.. (sounds dirty doesnt it?)...\n\nif it really went to court.. which i would say is 99.999% unlikely.. they could probably pin her with negligence or something along those lines.. nothing of which that would result on anything other than a slap on the wrist.\n\njames is wrong.. as i stated. it cannot be homicide in any shape or form as she did not cause the inital heart attack..\n\njames.. i assure you, that argument will not hold up in a million years.. manslaugher would have been a more likely approch for your point.. which too is unlikely.. \n\n\nalso the link you provided is ENTIRELY irrelavant to the question asked.. for one thing.. it applies to monetary settlements.. not criminal charges.. second.. it applies primarily to the work force.. and doenst say anything about homicide or death.. let alone address my point about her not causing the initial heart attack.. did you even read that entire link? or did you just throw up the first thing you could find on a search engine?.. \n\nid quit while you are ahead..
46462
According to reference #1, depending upon the\ncircumstances, "vehicular manslaughter" can be a \n"misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment\nof a year in county jail or only a fine) or a felony\npunishable by a term in state prison ...".\n\nFor example, if the cause is DUI, then code 191.5 applies\n(see reference #2), which says:\n\n "gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated \n  is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison \n  for 4, 6, or 10 years"\n\n "Any person convicted of violating this section who has one\n or more prior convictions of this section ... [or other\n sections] ..., shall be punished by imprisonment in the\n state prison for a term of 15 years to life."\n\nSo, the minimum could be a fine and the maximum could\nbe life.  Obviously, the circumstances make all the\ndifference.
576164
There may be an on going investigation that you are not aware of.  Please speak to the policeman that you gave the report to and ask for an update.  Sometimes what we think is a done deal, is not enough for our courts to hang someone with.  I'm glad you had the courage and fortitude to do something about it.  Good for you!
157274
Each state has its own set of sentencing guidelines.\n\nAs to the other apart of your statement, the charge would stick, as long as the person lives...additional charges would be filed if should they die as a result of the action. And NO, the judge isn't going to lenient because you're a lousy shot!
570403
1. \nFirst what should be done?\nI think that the Dean should arrest the boy(he OBVIOUSLY did it!) and torture him until he confesses. That will serve the justice!\n\nHave you heard of presumption of innocence?[1]\n\n2. \nNow a real question is what would happen if convicted. This really depends on a lot of things. \nThere can be several crimes in play:\na. Defacing public property -- this is easy to proof, he will probably be fined as a result of this\nb. Attempted murder -- this will never fly, merely making a threat will not amount to an attempt.\nc. making terroristic  threats -- some states have this crime. This can be applied, but they will still have to prove INTENT to threaten death. If he can prove that this was a mere joke he can probably get of this charge.[2]
326355
Bail is a right of an person accused of a crime. ( it is not given in all cases but can be)  These rights are given to us by the constitution.\n\nthe US system of justice is basedon innocent until proved guilty by a court of law, with evidence that can be presented in court.\n\nWhat level is the charge, murder, or manslaughter ?\n\nOf course if there is bail set, lets say 400,000, he still wont get out unless his family is rich.
195171
Advantage - if prosecutors purposefully or accidentally made a mistake, they can release the guy from jail.  They can't, however, un-dead him.\n\nAdvantage - Imposing a life sentence is cheaper (even counting the cost of incarceration) than imposing the death sentence.\n\nAdvantage - If you don't execute the person, you don't have to turn someone on the state payroll into a murderer.\n\nAdvantage - Life inmates can work.  Death row inmates are not allowed to work.
149118
Was it a related charge?  ie 1st degree murder to 2nd degree murder?  Then there's no material change in the charges and it can proceed.  If they went from shoplifting to assault and battery though they'd have to give time to prepare a defense to that since that was not the orginial charge.