what is the difference between negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter?
459827
Types of Negligent Homicide\n\nThe first of these, negligent homicide, is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It can also be considered a death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. In some states, the term negligent homicide replaces the terminology of manslaughter (involuntary) with similar defining. Unintentional killing(s) in which the actor(s) should have known they were creating substantial and unjustified risks of death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care summarizes the relationship between the definitions of these terms (Samaha, 2002, p. 536).\n\n\nElements and Types of Involuntary Manslaughter\n\nThree versions of manslaughter (involuntary) exist. Involuntary manslaughter is separated into criminal reckless manslaughter, (gross) criminal negligence manslaughter, and unlawful or misdemeanor manslaughter. They vary by their degree of Mens Rea, or the mental mindset of the person committing the crime. A person who is held aware is also viewed more responsible for his or her actions. The Mens Rea element is the creation of risk involved with killing or seriously injuring another person either recklessly or negligently. All the other aspects are the same. The Actus Reus, the actual act constituting a criminal offense, is the killing of another person. The circumstance is the death during the commission of the unlawful act and the causation is any act that triggers a chain of events, which lead to the death of another person. The result obviously is the death of this other person (Samaha, 2002, p. 372). \n\nBlack’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, sixth edition defines the following terms: manslaughter, involuntary, and accidental killing. It states manslaughter as "the unjustifiable, inexcusable and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation and malice." The definition continues to include "the unlawful killing of a human without deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due causation and circumspection" (1992, p. 964). Specifically, the defining of the term involuntary "is that which is performed under duress, force, or coercion" (1992, p. 827). Accidental killing on the other hand is in contrast to involuntary. It is defined as "an act which is lawful and lawfully done under a reasonable belief that no harm is possible" (1992, p. 16).
177043
A serial killer is an irrational person who kills, over and over...\n\nA cigarette, on the other hand, is an inanimate object.\nIt doesn't kill.\nUnfortunately, people use it to kill themselves.
125514
The transferred intent doctrine only applies to the mental intent to do harm to another person.  There are other ways that a person could be charged with homocide (if that was the result), that do not require the requisate state of mind for first or second degree murder (common law).  For example, depending on the behavior that was involved, reckless endangerement could be a basis for a charge, among many others.
325440
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.
81143
He is not critical. However, if any person dies and it is related directly to other persons harm, then the law states he may be charged with involuntary homicide. The same holds true for an automobile accident or anything that may take the life of another human being. I personally, do not think this attorney will die as a result of the injury sustained from this incident. It was a very unfortunate accident.
779199
There are multiple possible standards.\n\nCriminal negligence is where the person was responsible for stopping the criminal, and failed to exercise due care in doing so. This only applies where the person owed a legal duty to act.\n\nReckless endangerment is where the person had a legal duty to act or at least a duty to reduce the risk of harm, and choose to either not act or to disregard that risk of harm. The difference is that negligence is an objective standard (what they should have done), while recklessness involves a subjectively known duty/risk.\n\nCriminal facilitation (accomplice liability) is where the person knew they were helping the criminal commit the crime, and helped them anyway.
763297
Some people believe that the unborn baby  doesn't have a soul.  Others believe that we have a sould as soon as we are concieved... the other side of this is that it is murder if you kill a human with at heart beat, where does the line get drawn?
1136706
worst case scenario\n-premeditated 1st degree murder = needle in your arm\n-double homicide = life or death depending on your state and how good your lawyer is\n-crime of passion = life\n-involuntary manslaughter = 25 to life\n-if your rich and/or famous = probation and community service
145430
"Murder" defines the ILLEGAL killing of another human being. Killing someone isn't "murder" until the killer is convicted of the crime of murder. So yes, killing a person is legal in most countries.\n\nOJ Simpson and Senator Ted Kennedy are classic examples of a "killer", but they're not  murderers. Doctors who perform abortion and euthanasia are "killers", but not murderers. Executioners are killers and so are drunk drivers in many cases. They usually aren't charged with nor convicted of murder.
168764
That depends on the crime. Different crimes have different statutes of limitations, and those all vary by the jurisdiction. Some do not have limits, such as murder.
736732
This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, so that people usually actually serve about 7 years.  I don't know if you consider that lenient, but the rationale would be that the *intent* was not to kill - same rationale behind the penalty for manslaughter being less than that for murder.\n\nThe Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may be inclined to agree with you, as it issued a statement in January of this year recommending that CPS lawyers should "take a tougher line" on those who kill in this manner (see sources).
586470
The only thing wrong about unnatural death is when it is premeditated murder/suicide... I believe that abortion (unless it is for the mother's life) is murder.  Capital punishment is one thing I haven't gotten my head around yet.  I can't decide.  I lean toward the fact that only God can judge, but I also understand the plea of the victims.
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
109985
PASSSION killing is a killing that is motivated by extreme emotional outrage.  For example, you see a family member get gunned down.  You then attack and kill your family members killer.\n\nGender based violence is where a man likes to abuse women or a woman likes to abuse men.\n\nPatriarchy is a society that is dominated by males. (Matriarchy is female)\n\nAlso - check your spelling, young-in!
582741
Yes the definitions are very different every state has its own penal code and is free to define crimes and punishments for them in any way they see fit.\n\n\nFor example:\n\nPennsylvania penal code [1] defines 2nd degree murder as "-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or\nan accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. "\n\nwhile \n\nNew york penal code defines 2nd degree murder COMPLETELY differently (see NY penal code 125.25)[2] as:\n A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:\n\n 1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;  except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:\n\n  (a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.  Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime;  or\n\n  (b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.  Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second degree or any other crime;  or\n\n 2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person;  or\n\n 3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants;  except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant:\n\n  (a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof;  and\n\n  (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons;  and\n\n  (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance;  and\n\n  (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury;  or\n\n 4. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, and being eighteen years old or more the defendant recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than eleven years old and thereby causes the death of such person; or\n\n5. Being eighteen years old or more, while in the course of committing rape in the first, second or third degree, criminal sexual act in the first, second or third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first, second, third or fourth degree, or incest as defined in section 255.25 of this chapter, against a person less than fourteen years old, he or she intentionally causes the death of such person.
397346
It depends from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but on a basic, functional level, first degree murder means murder with premeditation (thought, care and planning rather than spur of the moment) and capital murder is a subset of first degree murder that a jurisdiction has designated as particularly heinous and hence death-eligible.  For example, in Texas, murder of a child under 6 or a peace officer is considered capital murder.
83659
if somebody dies as a result of a felony you are involved in committing, you are guilty of felony murder. \n\nfor example, if you and another person rob a bank, and your accomplice kills somebody, you are also guilty of that murder.