Redemption is becoming overvalued.

Doing something which might be knowingly stupid, but which lacks any intent to kill. Say, punching a guy, only for him to fall and crack his skull, that sort of thing.

That is definitely not a crime worthy of death, but if you ignore intent then you open up a huge can of worms. Morality is all about intent. If we try one thing and accidentally do something worse, then stupidity or bad luck could be the most important factor if you ignore intent.

ETA: Copied from the Wikipedia article on manslaughter, this is relevant to the hypothetical "death by reckless driving" example for which you still think the death penalty is applicable: For example, a person who runs a red light in their vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[12]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:01:14 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

Manslaughter is defined as "every killing that isn't murder", as far as I can tell.

Murder has very specific creteria, of course, so the definition of manslaughter can be infinitely broad while murder is fairly narrow.

If that's the case, then no, manslaughter isn't really a necessary concept.

If you punch someone and they fall over, crack their skull, and die, then it's still your fault. Granted, if they punched you first, then I'd let you go. However, if you started it, then tough shit, you shouldn't be punching people.

Likewise, running a red light and killing someone is unacceptable. Tough shit.

Intent can be quite relevant for lower-level crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're goddamned poor is much more sympathetic and justified than a jackass like Bernie Madoff. However, the usefulness of intent is, in my opinion, inversely proportional to the severity of the crime.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:05:41 PM by USAF713

How so?

If the intent is to punch someone, that's very different compared with the intent to crack their skull. If you'd still kill them either way, then luck is all that decides life and death with you. That's ridiculous.

The stupid decision to run a red light versus the evil one to run someone down in your car. The former is your fault, the latter, a matter of luck. A stronger than normal punishment for the former is fair, but nothing on the level of the latter with intent.

Please, look up the concept of manslaughter (case studies, and the like - more than just a one line definition on this forum), and honestly tell me it's meaningless USAF.

Well, it's not a matter of luck, it's a matter of personal intelligence. Somebody can't have their skull cracked open by you punching them if you don't punch them in the first place.

You would have made the choice to punch them. It is soundly your fault. That you didn't consider the full possibilities is not my problem. Likewise, we tell people all the fucking time: slow the fuck down, and stop for red lights; they're there for safety, not window dressing.

Ignore at your own peril.

I suppose I'll read its Wikipedia page, however, if that will satisfy you.

I'm not saying that punching someone is sensible, or that punishment wouldn't be warranted, but you should judge accordingly and not mete out the punishment for murder. Stupidity and bad luck are not in themselves crimes, and while they may make other crimes worse, that cannot sanely be taken so far as putting minor crimes like traffic violations on the level of murder.

Free will - intent. That is what sets human beings apart from other creatures. If you ignore it in the justice system, then you ignore what makes us human. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call ignorance of intent in the justice system to be inhuman.

As for your last, what will "satisfy me" is learning the concept so you can actually talk about something you understand - clearly you do not understand so far, or else (I hope) you wouldn't be saying what you are.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:42:00 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

However, the fact that you weren't out to kill anyone is not relevant, because you did kill someone.

"I didn't mean to" doesn't justify such a thing. There is no "I didn't mean to." You just don't do those things. And if you do, then you suffer the consequences of your actions.

At the very least, I actually agree with this statement. Otherwise, you can end up with things like criminals claiming that they didn't "shoot to kill," and more crap like that.

Not always avoidable. Bad luck doesn't warrant the death penalty. The victim might well be culpable themselves in such accidents (the pedestrian might have been jaywalking), in which case responsibility would be logically shared. In such a case, it's both their faults and neither, for both have committed stupid acts (running a red light and jaywalking) and the consequences have happened. The driver doesn't deserve to die himself for that.

Intent is for a jury to decide. Funnily enough, it's not always just a case of the perpetrator's word. If you ignore intent completely though, they don't get to do that and justice isn't done.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:50:49 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

People CAN change. I have. I was a bit of an asshole, and very annoying when I was little, and I realize that now. I still do things that are stupid once in a while but i'm getting better.

Maybe, but that's hardly a reason to excuse someone from a murder trial.

The "victim" could very well be culpable—for example, by starting the fight. I would say that even if the pedestrian was jaywalking, the driver would still be much more at fault, because they have far more responsibility with what amounts to a weapon in the form of a ton of steel going at somewhere between 30 to 60 miles per hour.

The thing you people are talking about is called mens rea. It's a core concept of criminal law. Maybe some of you haven't read it.

Looking at the Wikipedia page, I would accept a manslaughter charge for the concept of "imperfect self-defense" and diminished capacity, both on a case-by-case basis...

@USAF

Keep in mind that a murder is only first-class if you planned it. Even if you were fighting a person, if it was an instinctive one that did not include a planned killing, it's different.

In those cases, of course redemption is important. You made a mistake and you realize you shouldn't have overreacted, but you don't need to factor in murderous intent when you consider redemption because you didn't have one.

Except intent isn't important to me. Somebody is dead. More often than not, there is no justifiable reason for it. If they, in your given example of two people in a fight, started it, then it would be the "victim's" fault, and I'd let the other person go with a disorderly conduct charge and a life spent feeling guilty over his or her own stupidity. Otherwise, there is no excuse, save self-defense and a handful of mitigating factors.

Context is important. Intent, more often than not, is not, at the capital crime level.