What is the distinction between murder and manslaughter, and why does it matter?
This article is inspired by the Law Masterclass conducted by the University of Cambridge on May 20, 2021. I argue that this distinction is extremely important and also throws light on potential issues that could arise due to the current legal definitions of these crimes.
To examine whether the distinction matters, we explore to whom it would matter, and how. The factors investigated are fair labelling, proven intent, penalisation and parole.
Key Legal Terms and Legislature
These definitions are sourced either directly from legislature (acts) or UK Parliamentary Reports; (Allen & Zayed, 2021).
Homicide is the crime committed when there is the unnatural death of a person(s), due to the actions of another person(s), under the Queen's peace (during public law and order, not war or other emergencies). Put simply, it is the killing of one person by another person(s). Homicide is of 4 types: Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide and Corporate homicide.
Murder is committed where a person is of “sound mind and discretion” (i.e. sane); unlawfully kills (outside the realms of self –defence or other justified killing); with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). The key distinction between murder and manslaughter is the criminal intent (mens rea) to kill or cause GBH.
There are Complete and Partial defences to murder.
A complete defence to murder is a complete legal excuse from penalisation for murder, leading to the acquittal of the perpetrator. The first, and arguably the most popular complete defence is self-defence.
The common law defence of self-defence applies where the defendant uses necessary, reasonable and proportionate force to defend themselves or another from imminent attack. It is a complete defence to all non-sexual offences involving the unlawful use of force (anything from battery to murder). Whether or not the force used was reasonable will be objectively assessed by the jury and not simply according to what the defendant thought at the time.
A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. … It must be reasonable. — Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130
As per the M'Naghten rules, insanity and infancy (perpetrators that are younger than 10 years old can plead for reduced penalisation, until they are 18) are complete defences.
A complete defence is self-defence. 2 other complete defences are insanity and infancy (if the defendant is under 10 years old, they ). Partial defences to murder include "Loss of Control" (Provocation), "Diminished responsibility" (alcoholism or drug addictions as a prolonged disease causing murder, not short voluntary intoxication) and "Suicide Pacts". Interestingly, the burden of proof for "diminished responsibility" falls on the defence, yet, when the defence claims "loss of control", it is for the prosecution to disprove. When a partial defence is successful, it becomes a case of "voluntary manslaughter"
Murder can also be a transferred charge, with 2 common cases. Firstly, the defendant intended serious harm to a person(s), but an unintended other person dies as a result; secondly, multiple people share an intent to do serious harm, and the victim dies because of the action of any of those involved (if one person goes "further than expected", resulting in unplanned lethal action).
Manslaughter is the crime committed when a person unlawfully dies, without there being murder.
Voluntary manslaughter occurs due to a partial defence to murder.
Involuntary manslaughter is due to gross negligence or other dangerous and unlawful acts.
Penalisation
Murder (Under the Homicide Act, 1957) compels the guilty party to face a mandatory life sentence (the judge can't change this). However, this life sentence may be shortened, after a minimum period of 20 years.
Manslaughter imposes a maximum penalisation of imprisonment for life, but has no mandatory life sentence. The judge may impose shorter prison sentences at his/her discretion. If the offender pleads guilty the judge will reduce the sentence by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made. In the case of corporate manslaughter (where an organisation is convicted of causing the death) the penalty will be a fine.
Accomplices - A Grey Area
Under common law, an accomplice is "a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even if they take no part in the actual criminal offence". For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points a gun and demands money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else involved, such as the lookout or getaway driver, is an accomplice, even if in the absence of an underlying offence keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offence. Furthermore, the accomplices can be prosecuted even if the others involved are not charged or are acquitted.
This seems rather harsh as being an accomplice to murder leads to a mandatory life sentence, and is not considered manslaughter. The reason the law is this way could be to serve as a harsh incentive not to engage in the crime, but how fair this provision of the law is, is for another article to explore.
Conclusion
The distinction is of great importance, as seen above, as it separates those who face a mandatory life sentence from those who do not. The distinction also ensures fair labelling of the accused, based on the presence (or lack thereof) of proven intent.
Comments