Sample Criminal Law Paper on Manslaughter
The judicial system is charged with the role of determining or resolving the outcome of disputes, especially those that are against the rule of law. It upholds the rule of law by passing judgment in accordance with the difference charges that one is accused of committing. Involuntary manslaughter can be related to the unpremeditated demise of an individual that results from rash conduct from another being. This type of crime is not planned for, that is, one not being aware that his or her actions could result in the death of another person. On the other hand, abandoned heart homicide is defined as an intended action where a person has no regard for human life. This form of murder is termed as willingly taking life knowingly.
In the eyes of the law, both abandoned heart homicide and involuntary manslaughter are punishable though at different degrees. The difference between these two forms of murder is that abandoned heart homicide is carried out with a mindset to take life; the accuser has no regard to value life and carries out his or her actions knowing that it endangers another person’s wellbeing. Involuntary manslaughter is different from this in that it is not intended; the accuser does not intend to take life. However, their negligence or reckless actions lead to loss of life that although not intended, is punishable. Another difference between the two is that instances where a person is charged with involuntary manslaughter, the sentencing is lighter as compared to abandoned heart homicide. This is because of the reckless behavior of the accused causes death to another, although not intentional. Such persons are charged or sentenced substantially for crimes befitting their actions.
Various factors are to be considered before a prosecutor has to charge anyone with either manslaughter or abandoned heart homicide. In relation to involuntary manslaughter, three elements are considered before one is found guilty of committing a crime befitting involuntary manslaughter. One is that because of someone’s action, a life was lost in the process. Additionally, the accused is aware that his or her actions pose a threat to the lives of others, including their own. Most charges of involuntary manslaughter are related to a car crash where the accused drives under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In such a case, their actions are carried out recklessly that result in loss of life. Such elements are what a prosecutor uses to charge someone for causing death based on their irresponsible behavior.
In determining whether a person committed an abandoned heart homicide, the prosecutor has to understand their state of mind. Some States refer to this as first-degree murder, committed willing fully. To constitute an abandoned heart homicide, the actions should have demonstrated a careless behavior towards upholding the value of human life. The actions involved here are unjustified and result in death. As such, such individuals are charged with committing murder due to a reckless behavior that poses a threat to others.
The judicial system carries out the sentencing in reference to the law, that is, it is intended to uphold the law. As such, human life is sacred, protected under the constitution and any action that results in the death of others is punishable. Although the sentencing is different for abandoned heart homicide and involuntary manslaughter, the penalties are a form of punishment to warm others to consider their actions so as not to pose a threat to others.
Binder, Guyora. “Meaning and Motive in the Law of Homicide.” Buffalo Criminal Law Review 3.2 (2000): 755-774.
Crump, David. “Assaultive Felony Murder: Homicide with Intent to Cause Serious Injury.” Santa Clara Law Review 55 (2015): 247.
Hall, Steve and David Wilson. “New foundations: Pseudo-pacification and Special Liberty as Potential Cornerstones for a Multi-level Theory of Homicide and Serial Murder.” European Journal of Criminology 11.5 (2014): 635-655.
Zazula, Bela Attila. “Involuntary Manslaughter in The New Romanian Penal Code.” Journal of Legal Studies 16.30 (2015): 31-38.