Talk:Murder
Also, in some European countries, it is not murder if a mother kills her child, provided that the child is less than 356 days old. AND - The mother has been found to have soem disturbance of mind resulting from the effects of childbirth. Thus the element of mental disturbance (e.g. post-partum depression, or psychoses) is essential, although in practice such evidence can be minimal, if non-existant. JN
Perhaps you would like to tell us which European country this is. I'd like to know. -- Derek Ross
This makes it sound like the mother gets off scot free:
- In many countries — including Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia — infanticide laws allow women to kill their child in the first year of his or her life.
A mother is certainly not ALLOWED to kill her child in the UK, simply because it is aged less than one year! However she is treated more leniently if it can be proven she has disturbance of mind ...........JN
I know for a fact in the UK and Australia that's not the case -- the mother might be found guilty of a lesser crime than murder, with lesser penalties, but she'd still be convicted of SOMETHING. -- An.
At least that is more accurate ....JN
The anon above is correct this is simply incorrect for the UK and Australia, I don't know about other countries, so i've moved the para to here.
- In many countries — including Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia — infanticide laws allow women to kill their child in the first year of his or her life. Some allow the mother to kill all her children, providing that one child hasn't yet celebrated a first birthday. The killer need then only show that the "balance of her mind was disturbed" by childbirth and having a baby in the house.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel082801.shtml This is from there - it seems that this part is correct
- In many nations, including Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Australia, there is an infanticide clause that exempts mothers who kill a child under the age of 1 from being charged with murder. Instead, these laws typically provide that the maximum charge that can be levelled is manslaughter.
- This is simply BAD inaccurate reporting. Mintguy
I don't think so Mr.Mintguy...... This is actually the most accurate thing I have read on the whole page!!!! JN
Well then clarify - there is a relevant exception for mothers, that is clear from both articles i quoted (the other is from bbc - see other talk page).
Is killing done by a terrorist murder? A couple of example questions.
- John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo shot a number of people in the area of Washington DC. At the time and since, their actions have been referred to "terrorizing the city". Are they murderers, terrorists or both?
- Is a suicide bomber that kills people other than himself a murderer?
The news broadcasts these days seem to rarely use the word "murder" and its derivates in referring to a wide variety of acts, preferring to use "kill" or even the passive voice "xxx people were killed as a result of ...."
Guidance please OneVoice 04:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Yes" to both Y/N questions, and "both" to the other. It's important not to confuse journalism with law.
It's also worth noting that the press did get it right to a certain extent in mentioning terrorization: in one of the jurisdictions, that is an aggravating circumstance, and sufficient to put the death penalty on the table.
Should discuss "necessity" in this context. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- OK. Application of the concept of 'necessity' to the DC sniper case is a lunatic-fringe political theory. End of discussion.
Felony murder statutes
I have heard two different versions of the concept:
- There is no felony murder without a death that would be a murder by someone, even in the absence of the shared felony. That is, working in concert to commit the felony simply makes the murder "contagious" to all the conspirators.
- "If you run down a drunk during the getaway, that's a murder." That has at several interpretations, corresponding to these specific examples:
- You don't even have a gun, but pretend to; the cop in the lobby follows you out, draws his gun and yells "Stop, Police!" You get flustered and turn toward him without raising your hands; he shoots, killing a bystander; you faint dead away. Are you liable for felony murder of the bystander?
- I would believe yes. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Does it make a difference if it was one of your partners the cop kills?
- I would not think so. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Nobody gets shot, and the getaway car is proceeding at the normal pace of traffic, blending in with the citizenry; as soon as the drunk staggers into sight from behind the truck parked in the middle of the block, you slam on the brakes, but he's too close and you run him over.
- If there's a quick response to the accident, AND a timely report of the robbery over the radio, AND the cops put 2+2 together and perform a search of the vehicle (incidental to the accident investigation) this would be a likely scenario for a FM prosecution to occur. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Same situation, but the drunk dies bcz you're driving fast enought that it would be negligent homicide, but, in the absence of the robbery, it would not be murder (no "depraved indifference to human life").
- Same as previous. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- You don't even have a gun, but pretend to; the cop in the lobby follows you out, draws his gun and yells "Stop, Police!" You get flustered and turn toward him without raising your hands; he shoots, killing a bystander; you faint dead away. Are you liable for felony murder of the bystander?
Which of these are felony murders, if any? --Jerzy(t) 23:12, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)
The United States
I've removed the following, which would be good info in an article on American attitudes toward crime:
- Despite the large amount of attention that the media in the United States devote to murder trials, fewer people are murdered each year in the United States than die from suicide, from motor vehicle injuries, or from AIDS.
In this article, it's just floating loose, and thus only a distraction.
I believe in the UK the first paragraph is not correct. I believe that to prove murder you do not have to prove "intention to murder" but that, for example, to kill whilst acting intending to cause GBH (when the death was a foreseeable risk) is murder. I believe it is well established for example that where someone is coshed but dies because of a thin skull this is murder. However, I am not basing this on being a legal expert, just on the way the judge explained it to us when I did jury service recently--(talk)BozMo 15:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
The article contains a section about Germany. I am not sure if the following information should be included:
- number of murders/manslaugther/whatever-it-is-called per year: ~1000 - number of murders: ~400 - percentage of murder-cases, where the murderer is convicted: 94-95%