What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and are there diferences in punishment?
138743
Manslaughter is defined as "unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing)" (see my sources). Note that any evidence of premeditation (such as bringing a gun to the crime scene prior to the killing) would probably prompt the DA to charge murder instead of manslaughter. The killer must not have had prior intentions to cause death; that is the key. Furthermore, voluntary manslaughter is only manslaughter and not murder if the victim provoked the defendant.\nIn voluntary manslaughter, the killing was either committed along with a felony or in the heat of passion (a passion crime). In involuntary manslaughter, the killing was not committed along with a felony (running over someone, termed "vehicular manslaughter", is an example of this).\n\nInvoluntary manslaughter has a maximum sentence of two years. Voluntary manslaughter can lead to a life sentence. If a firearm was used in voluntary manslaughter, the minimum sentence is four years. As you can see, there are sharp differences.
111318
probably involuntary manslaughter, possibly criminal negligence. by the way, take them to the hospital.
116367
CARELESS, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE OF FIREARMS (EXCERPT) \nAct 45 of 1952 \n\n\n752.861 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; penalty. \n\nSec. 1.\n\nAny person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not wilfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his immediate control, to be discharged so as to kill or injure another person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, Maximum Sentence: 5 years 0 months,  and or a fine of not more than $2,000.00,  in the discretion of the court.\n\n\nHistory: 1952, Act 45, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952
788159
Capital punishment is premeditated killing.\nAs a Christian I am morally opposed to killing regardless of the situation.\nI also believe it is morally wrong to force me to pay for the state to kill people.\nOK, it's only 3 sentences.....so kill me.
435811
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.
139327
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?
759521
They are state laws, and different one to another.  Interestingly, some states reserve First Degree for the killing of a police officer.  But basically, First Degree is what they would execute you for if they do executions.  The worst.  Second degree generally includes some concept that it was not premeditated, or was in some part accidental.  Third degree is generally where you were not assumed to have done it on purpose, but what they call "reckless disregard."\n\nThat's very general.  It really is different by state.
538913
Murdered is a subset of killed.\n\nBasically, if I was to shoot someone intentionally, then I murdered him and also killed him.\n\nHowever, if I accidently run over a pedestrian, then I killed him, but I did not murder him.
147675
A suicide is the taking of one's own life. A homicide is the taking of another's life. Suicide is considered one of the only unforgivable sins because you cannot ask forgiveness by definition.
48308
MINIMUM? Thats kind of hard to answer because of different facts you have to take into account. It could be Rape if certain other things happen before or after the crime. Just like Murder you canbe charged with murder thinking you killed in self defence only to find out that had you ran you would not have had to kill. In this instance I don't think you deserve a death penalty. I don't know if I answered your question or not. Maybe some body else can do a better job. Good luck:
1151611
No, we are killing people who murdered other people as both a punishment, and as an act to say that we value life so much, that when you wrongfully take another's, yours is itself forfeit.\n\nIf you cannot distinguish between killing as punishment and the crime of murder, then, nobody can help you understand.
181012
Culpable homicide \nis a term in the law of Scotland which covers a number of different types of criminal homicide, roughly equivalent to manslaughter in English law and manslaughter in other legal criminal jurisdictions.\n\nThey are all part of this one category in that they are cases where death is caused by improper conduct and where the guilt is less than murder. Culpable homicide is often broken down into "voluntary culpable homicide" and "involuntary culpable homicide".\n\nMurder\nIn criminal law, murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (traditionally termed "malice aforethought") (see attempted murder where the mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind") requirement is limited). In some common law jurisdictions, an accused is not guilty of murder if the victim lives for longer than a year and a day after the attack. This reflects the likelihood that, if the victim has survived so long after the initial attack, there will be other factors contributing to the cause of death and so break the chain of causation. Subject to the local statute of limitation, the accused can still be charged with an offense representing the seriousness of the initial assault. But, with the advance of modern medicine, the majority of countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts. In most countries murder is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions.
95399
There isn't one.  Death penalty and capital punishment are synonyms.  The first two posts are wrong.  If you don't believe me, check the link below, or look it up in a dictionary.
194710
Not as many years as you should be sentenced to for being guilty of slaughtering and assaulting the English language. Oh my gosh! "Found guilty," "manslaughter," "assault."\n\nBut I'm not winning any friends that way. Here's an answer to your question:\n\nIt depends upon the jurisdiction, whether the judge has to use mandatory minimum sentencing, whether the guilty person had a prior record, whether s/he is a juvenile. It depends upon whether the person was found guilty in a trial and the sentence was recommended by a jury, or decided strictly by the judge; or, whether the defendant took a plea bargain from the district attorney and allocuted to the crime in front of a judge; and, whether the judge followed the sentencing recommendations laid out in the plea bargain. \n\nIn some jurisdictions the charges that you have mentioned are simple and straightforward; in others, there may be degrees of seriousness of each. In New York, there is manslaughter in the "first degree" and in the "second degree." They mean different things and have different punishments associated with them.\n\nIf this person is awaiting or in the middle of the trial, the jury will possibly have some say over whether lesser-included charges can dictate the sentence. There are two ways: one is by "jury nullification," where they come up with their own charge (very rare); another is that in some jurisdictions the jury can be instructed to find a person guilty of the most serious crime that the person has committed if they believe that the prosecutor has proven guilt, but not all of the facts of the highest charge. For instance: if someone were charged with manslaughter, and was obviously guilty of involvement in the murder but had not intended to kill the victim, the jury might be able to come back with a verdict of negligent homicide.\n\nOther factors: how much time did the person spend in jail before and after the indictment? Will that be deducted from the final sentence as time-served? Is the DA trying the person for both manslaughter and aggravated assault, or is the second somehow a lesser-included charge? Will the judge run the sentences consecutively or concurrently? (The defendant might get 7 years for manslaughter and 2 for aggravated assault. If concurrent, the max is 7 years; if consecutive, the person is being sentenced to 9 years.)\n\nYour question, though, is about how many years the person would serve. Besides the variables in sentencing, there would be considerations for good behavior and decisions by the parole board. So there's no way, with the information that you've given, that anyone could tell you exactly how long the defendant you describe would have to stay in jail.
138394
both allow capital punishment.  until recently both allowed for the execution of people who had committed crimes as a juvenile, i believe.
42264
In the state of Minnesota:\n\n (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.\n\n(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
600644
Depraved indifference murder was traditionally reserved for exceptionally heinous cases of involuntary manslaughter, where the perpetrator's conduct was so wanton and devoid of regard for human life that it could reasonably be equated with intent to kill. Some of the "classic" examples of depraved indifference murder are firing a weapon in a crowded place, dropping a heavy object from a height onto a busy street or driving a speeding vehicle down a sidewalk. Depraved indifference was generally regarded as a state of mind involving both moral culpability - the "depraved" part - and extreme indifference to the lives of the victims.