Murdering someone legally declared dead

sexmag

There was a thread a while back about going to someone house to kill them but them already being dead.

What is the scenario where someone has legally be declared dead and a death cert was issued but they aren't (for argument let's say they faked their death) and one way or another you find them and kill them.

Is there law or a case study to reference this?

hullaballoo

From first principles, it is perfectly possible to successfully prosecute a charge of murder in such circumstances in Ireland, thankfully.

Peregrinus

What hullaballo said. Being declared dead is not the same things as being dead. Being declared dead allows your property to be distributed, and your affairs to be dealt with, as though you were dead. It doesn't mean that you're dead. If somebody later kills you and is charged and tried, the declaration of death will have exactly zero relevance to the charge.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

What hullaballo said. Being declared dead is not the same things as being dead. Being declared dead allows your property to be distributed, and your affairs to be dealt with, as though you were dead. It doesn't mean that you're dead. If somebody later kills you and is charged and tried, the declaration of death will have exactly zero relevance to the charge.

Just because someone is alive doesn't mean that killing them is necessarily murder. The must be "under the king's peace".

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

Just because someone is alive doesn't mean that killing them is necessarily murder. The must be "under the king's peace".

I think you'll find that that particular principle did not survive the enactment of Bunreacht na hÉireann!

But, yes, not all killings are murders, or even homicides. I think, though, the OP contemplates killing somebody who has been declared dead in circumstances which in other respects amount to murder.

Victor

What if you kill someone you have already been convicted of killing? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/?ref_=nv_sr_2

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you'll find that that particular principle did not survive the enactment of Bunreacht na hÉireann!

A lot of people have been convicted of murder since the coming into force of Bunreacht na hÉirinn. I don't think enactment is the correct word. The definition of murder has only been changed once, in 1964 and there was no attempt to delete the reference to " the King's peace".

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

A lot of people have been convicted of murder since the coming into force of Bunreacht na hÉirinn. I don't think enactment is the correct word.

Bunreacht na hÉireann was enacted by the people. It says so right there in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The definition of murder has only been changed once, in 1964 and there was no attempt to delete the reference to " the King's peace".

Murder is a common-law offence. It doesn't have a statutory definition. The 1964 legislation wasn't expressed as an amendment to the "definition of murder"; it prescribed the mental element required for a murder.

If there was a pre-independence judicial precedent describing murder in terms of "the king's peace", that formulation is no longer good law in Ireland, seeing as how we don't have a king. In so far as the king had any role in Irish law prior to 1937, that role is now belongs to the people, and may be exercised in respect of teh State on the authority of the Government. That would include any function in regard to the peace.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

In so far as the king had any role in Irish law prior to 1937, that role is now belongs to the people, and may be exercised in respect of teh State on the authority of the Government.

The King retained some functions, in particular in relation to international affairs until 1948.

Claw Hammer

Victor wrote: »

The King retained some functions, in particular in relation to international affairs until 1948.

What happened in 1948?

GM228

Victor wrote: »

The King retained some functions, in particular in relation to international affairs until 1948.

Don't you mean April 18th 1949.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What happened in 1948 1949?

Ireland became a Republic.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

Don't you mean April 18th 1949.





Ireland became a Republic.

I didn't ask about 1949.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

The King retained some functions, in particular in relation to international affairs until 1948.

Yes. I left out, because it wasn't relevant to the point at issue, that the people's powers were exerciseable by the state on the authority of the government unless otherwise provided by law, and the External Affairs Act 1936, providing for the King to exercise functions with regard to accrediting ambassadors, etc, remained in force until 1949.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bunreacht na hÉireann was enacted by the people. It says so right there in Bunreacht na hÉireann.


Murder is a common-law offence. It doesn't have a statutory definition. The 1964 legislation wasn't expressed as an amendment to the "definition of murder"; it prescribed the mental element required for a murder.

If there was a pre-independence judicial precedent describing murder in terms of "the king's peace", that formulation is no longer good law in Ireland, seeing as how we don't have a king. In so far as the king had any role in Irish law prior to 1937, that role is now belongs to the people, and may be exercised in respect of teh State on the authority of the Government. That would include any function in regard to the peace.

As murder is a common law offence, there is of course a definition. The murderer must kill someone who is under someone's peace, either the king's or his successor.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

As murder is a common law offence, there is of course a definition. The murderer must kill someone who is under someone's peace, either the king's or his successor.

Wasn't the common law definition "the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Wasn't the common law definition "the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought".?

No. Where did you get that rubbish from?

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

No. Where did you get that rubbish from?

That was a joke in relation the "King" and "his", but it's far from rubbish, the long accepted definition was "the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s (or Queen’s) peace with malice aforethought, express or implied" as per Sir Edward Coke - Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

That was a joke in relation the "King" and "his", but it's far from rubbish, the long accepted definition was "the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s (or Queen’s) peace with malice aforethought, express or implied" as per Sir Edward Coke - Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797.

There is no mention of a human being in that later definition. Nor does the definition mention a person. You should try and quote your sources accurately.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is no mention of a human being in that later definition. Nor does the definition mention a person. You should try and quote your sources accurately.

My understanding is that is the accepted definition of convenience used first by the English courts based on his definition, but if you want the exact original phrase word for word - "murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same".

Source quoted accurately

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

My understanding is that is the phrase of convenience used first by the English courts based on his phrase, but if you want the exact original phrase word for word - "murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same".

That is a lot different to what you first came up with.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a lot different to what you first came up with.

As I said it's the definition of convenience, there is no point quoting in original form is there? For example the year and a day does not apply either. A few well respected authors have quoted something similar to that aswell.

Anyway it started as a joke so perhaps we can leave it at that.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

As I said it's the definition of convenience, there is no point quoting in original form is there?.

Of course there is. If you are trying to get away with murder you should have your definitions right. Just because you respect some people doesn't mean everyone does.

hullaballoo

Moderator: 4ensic15, cut out the sniping. Not just in this thread either. Posting your alternative view of laws is one thing but haranguing others about trivialities like this in language ranging from curt to disrespectful is not on.