Murder/Manslaughter

Long Onion

So,

Should we do away with the murder/manslaughter distinction and just move to a charge of unlawful killing?

dermot_sheehan

No, because someone who kills someone when they specifically intend to do it should be treated differently from someone who killed another recklessly or due to gross negligence.

There is a qualitative difference between the two offences in mens rea

Ab roller plus

Long Onion wrote: »

So,

Should we do away with the murder/manslaughter distinction and just move to a charge of unlawful killing?

What exactly would be the point of that? In any case, the difference is there because the law recognises that there can be different levels of moral culpability. In the mind of the public murder is the most heinous crime - and that is because its planned.

I would suggest an increase in the length of mandatory sentences - 17 years is a joke. There should be a minimum sentence of say 25 or 30 years for murder and judges should have discretion to give more time if necessary, depending on the circumstances of the crime and how much the victim suffered.

The_Minister

Someone is doing DIT law

The Law Reform Commission produced an excellent paper on this a while back, a quick google will get you speeches from Michael McDowell and a High Court judge on the issue.

It's an interesting debate to have, but I think the distinction should remain.

Anna88

The legal system is a joke....I know someone who got done for manslaughter when clearly it was murder!! Judge gave him 12 years and on account of "good behavour" they were released after 6 years! Personally Id like them to keep to their sentence and then worry about what taking a life should be deemed as in the eyes of the law!!

Long Onion

Not in Dit by the way.

The reason I ask is that I read an interesting agument from Keane CJ a while back whereby he was advocating such a move. His argument was that in Ireland it is very rare indeed for the accused to deny the killing but very common for them to deny murder and instead plead manslaughter.

Keane stated that by havine one offence of unlawful killing, the judge could sentence acccordingly, taking mitigating facotrs into account. The net result would be very few contested trials, swifter justice and much less trauma for the families of the victims. He suggested that the distinction was a social and moral one, more than a legal one.

I think the point is interesting. For tose of you in favour of retaining the distinctions, do you have a legal basis or is it morally informed?

MrMicra

Yes! The change discussed might give an opportunity to codify recklessness, mens rea, provocation, automatism and insanity and it would be worth doing for that reason alone, providing that sentencing guidelines were clear.

My concerns are primarily legal rather than moral.

legal eagle 1

I would suggest an increase in the length of mandatory sentences - 17 years is a joke. There should be a minimum sentence of say 25 or 30 years for murder and judges should have discretion to give more time if necessary, depending on the circumstances of the crime and how much the victim suffered.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone think that a mandatory life sentence for murder should actually mean a life spent behind bars?

PCPhoto

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I would suggest an increase in the length of mandatory sentences - 17 years is a joke. There should be a minimum sentence of say 25 or 30 years for murder and judges should have discretion to give more time if necessary, depending on the circumstances of the crime and how much the victim suffered.

Does anyone think that a mandatory life sentence for murder should actually mean a life spent behind bars?

maybe not life but for murder a minimum of 20years - and should not have any time reduced for "good behaviour" ..... FFS they are killers and should be punished.
Infact I would suggest that no prisoner should get time off for good behaviour - the longer we keep them off the streets the better - far too many "career criminals" and repeat offenders (ok....for repeat offenders no time off for "good behaviour".... the one time criminals can get a chance to get time off)

the entire system needs an overhaul - we have judges who live in their own world - some give sentences and ensure they make remarks for the waiting journo's to scribble down..... we have a ridiculous legal and judicial system which is full of ambiguity and loopholes.....infact we probably have more loopholes than laws (by that I mean people can find so many different ways to avoid prosecution on some charges).

sorry went a little off topic

/end rant

MrMicra

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I would suggest an increase in the length of mandatory sentences - 17 years is a joke. There should be a minimum sentence of say 25 or 30 years for murder and judges should have discretion to give more time if necessary, depending on the circumstances of the crime and how much the victim suffered.

Does anyone think that a mandatory life sentence for murder should actually mean a life spent behind bars?[/QUOTE]

A woman whose husband tells her that he is going to rape their 11 year old daughter tomorrow and who kills him that night should serve 25 years?

PCPhoto

MrMicra wrote: »

A woman whose husband tells her that he is going to rape their 11 year old daughter tomorrow and who kills him that night should serve 25 years?

YES ! - she should have gone to the Gardai and informed them of her husbands intentions, one crime cannot be committed in order to stop another "proposed" crime - if this was the case we could all commit murder and claim the victim told us they were going to do something similar (ie. rape/murder).

Long Onion

PCPhoto wrote: »

YES ! - she should have gone to the Gardai and informed them of her husbands intentions, one crime cannot be committed in order to stop another "proposed" crime - if this was the case we could all commit murder and claim the victim told us they were going to do something similar (ie. rape/murder).

But what of the woman who has been brutalised over a long period of time and who is too scared to go to the authorities due to the lack of interest or action shown when she had gone in the past. One night she snaps, goes to him whilst he is sleeping and murders him?

The dangers of appyling a bright line rule are grave.

There is a severe danger of this thread going off topic now. So to bring the argument back to the point in hand, the question was related to the merits of abolishing the murder/manslaughter distinction (fewer contested trials, less stress for victims families, lower costs to the state, more court time freed up) versus the social desire to retain the tag of "murder".

The abolitition of the "murder" offence does not have to lead to shorter sentences, there could be a generous sentencing range for unlawful killing ranging from 5 years to life with the courts taking into account mitigating factors at the time of the sentencing. The only real difference is that 95% of the murder trials that are presently contested by the accused (who is not denying the killing but arguing that it is, infact, manslaughter) would now go straight to the sentencing stage.

MrMicra

A judge would still have to make a determination as to Mens Rea and pass sentence accordingly.
Mens Rea is crucial in this matter after all.


Do you feel that perhaps too much power would be passed from the Jury and Legislature to judiciary?

Long Onion

MrMicra wrote: »

A judge would still have to make a determination as to Mens Rea and pass sentence accordingly.
Mens Rea is crucial in this matter after all.


Do you feel that perhaps too much power would be passed from the Jury and Legislature to judiciary?

I don't know if I fully agree with you on this matter. In such cases, the accused would be pleading guilty to the crime of unlawful killing, the judge would have sentencing guidelines ranging from parole to life and would pass sentance after having regard to mitigating circumstances. I think it may actually help aviod some of the mens rea pitfalls.