Why Murder & not manslaughter

Nuttzz

Just out of interest why does the DPP prosecute some people for murder when they admit manslaughter?

Take the lillis trial for example, he had admitted to manslaughter, why not just take that guilty plea, give him 10 years and be done with it, why go to all the expense of a trial?

seamus

It's the DPP's job to initiate prosecutions for crimes based on the evidence that has been gathered. If the DPP believed they had sufficient evidence that Lillis was guilty of murder, then why *not* charge him with murder? Surely if someone has committed a murder, it is better to convict them of murder and jail them for life than to simply accept a lesser plea on the basis that it will save money?

Nuttzz

Nuttzz wrote: »

Just out of interest why does the DPP prosecute some people for murder when they admit manslaughter?

Take the lillis trial for example, he had admitted to manslaughter, why not just take that guilty plea, give him 10 years and be done with it, why go to all the expense of a trial?

There are a number of reasons.

1. Murder is a far more serious crime which has mandatory penalties attached to it, it carries a far higher stigma and is at the pinnacle of the scale of criminal offences along with rape.

2. The State must always seek to pursue the correct charge. The DPP genuinely believed they had a case to make out for murder, therefore that was the case they pursued. The DPP are not interested in a conviction at all costs, rather they must pursue the matter in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

3. Manslaughter is an alternative verdict to murder, so even if, as happened, the DPP fails to make a case for murder they can still get a verdict of manslaughter.

4. In cases such as these costs should not, and are not, a primary concern. Certainly not to the victim's family or generally the interests of the State properly punishing crimes of this magnitude.

5. He would NEVER have gotten 10 years if they'd accepted a manslaughter plea. The trial judge, Justice White, gave him 7 years even after a fully contested case and evidence of previous lies to the Gardaí. You really think he would have got more when an early guilty plea is the number 1 gold standard mitigating factor in sentencing considerations?

Nuttzz

Thanks for that,

I suspose 10 years was an off the top of my head type of sentence and not necessarilty one that applies to lillis, 7 years seems a bit short but i think thats for a different thread.

Why can they convict you of manslaughter when you are charged with murder, seems a bit of a cop out to me. If you murdered them you did it or you didnt to it, so not guilty of murder means you didnt mean to kill them, if they felt you didnt mean to kill them then you should have been charged with manslaughter in the first place.

It seems to me that if they cant make the murder charge stick "sure we'll get him for manslaughter anyway, not great but it will do" and its an escape for the DPP. In a rape case you either did it or didnt do it or is there lesser charge here too? (sexual assualt)

I suspose my original question really steams around, why go through a trial for something they admit to doing? Although I can understand it in some cases like the Cork trial going on at the moment

Victor

There are two elements to a murder charge (a) killing someone (b) some element of pre-meditation.

It matter not what the DPP thinks, its what a jury will accept. some juries will accept point a, some will accept a+b.

Wishbone Ash

On a similar theme, AFAIK one can be convicted of murder even when there was no intention to kill - e.g. if a firearm is accidentally discharged causing death during a robbery even though it was intended to use it as a visual threat.

(I'm open to correction though!).

Victor

In fairness "Give me the money or granny gets it!" demonstrates a willingness to do harm, even when the gun is unloaded.

Intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a murder charge.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

On a similar theme, AFAIK one can be convicted of murder even when there was no intention to kill - e.g. if a firearm is accidentally discharged causing death during a robbery even though it was intended to use it as a visual threat.

(I'm open to correction though!).

You're talking about the presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions. This is true.

The state of mind required to ground a conviction for murder is that they must have intended to kill or cause serious harm.

Recklessness is the state of mind for manslaughter. Murder can be reduced to manslaughter where there is provocation, an element of self-defence or some other legal defense is raised such as automatism.

What the DPP thinks does matter as the indictment is drawn up by them and the crimes with which the accused will be charged will be contained within it.

The courts have wrangled over the proper charge to put to a jury in murder cases to adequately explain the difference between murder and manslaughter and, though this is admittedly a difficult task, for the most part they are successful. The jury are, ultimately, the arbiters of fact but they must decide upon those facts in the context of the law as it is explained to them by the trial judge.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

In fairness "Give me the money or granny gets it!" demonstrates a willingness to do harm, even when the gun is unloaded.

Intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a murder charge.

Incorrect. If the gun is not loaded then you'd have some job proving an intent to cause harm.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

There are two elements to a murder charge (a) killing someone (b) some element of pre-meditation.

It matter not what the DPP thinks, its what a jury will accept. some juries will accept point a, some will accept a+b.

The use of the word "pre-meditation" is very misleading here. You don't have to have thought about it in advance for it to be murder. You just have to have intended to kill when the act took place.