Of course not, that’s why I said it. (Apparently in limited places in America it’s somehow possible, which really is just the exception that proves it’s nonsense).
I’ve heard enough, 10 years!!!
I was gonna say this as well, but I forgot to. Murder is unlawful killing with mens rea, manslaughter is unlawful killing without mens rea - so attempted manslaughter would be attempting to not kill someone without mens rea. It’s a real rabbit warren.
and the mens rea for murder can also be intent to cause GBH (not that you were saying it isn’t but I think people don’t realise you dont actually need to intend to kill someone for it to be murder)
Yes, Woollin and virtually certainty and all that.
Although I don’t think this conversation is really going to go anywhere.
Maybe you two should have a legal podcast: Abe and the Babe.
And interview ChrisJabe.
are there any states / countries that don’t have a manslaughter charge that you know of?
i’ve always thought it was kind of a stupid charge
I dunno - only googled for “attempted manslaughter” to make that failed joke up there really.
Why do you think it’s stupid?
seems like getting punished for having bad luck
It judges the consequence rather than the action. If the bus had been a metre further forward and the woman had died, the dickhead’s actions wouldn’t be any morally different
But it’s not a crime that just exists to cover “accidents” that kill people:
Men’s rea, Women’s rea, Whatever
still seems bizarre to me. like if they stab that guy and he lives then they get x punishment, but if he happens to die then they get y punishment. the crime is exactly the same but the punishment seems to be down to how lucky you are
it’s not really that simple though. there are different forms of manslaughter, some result from partial defences to murder.
and the same sort of thing could be said about lots of offences. should people be charged with something as serious as causing death by dangerous driving every time they do something silly when driving? we use the ones who do end up killing through their culpable actions as a deterrent and you could argue there is good reason not to take account of a criminal’s moral bad luck. if you are recklessly or deliberately violent then you are taking on that onus already and if you are unlucky then it is just too bad. level of intent doesn’t have to perfectly correspond to the extent that someone is held responsible.
yes? if you do something that has endangered lives you should face the consequences whether or not someone has actually died from it
yeah I’m not really arguing either way from a philosophical pov, just saying the law is full of that sort of logic.
it’s a charge because the UK doesnt have different levels of murder ('1st degree etc) like the US, and the minimum sentence is life. there are situations where someone caused the death of another person where life wouldn’t be appropriate. like if someone massively physically and emotionally abused their spouse for decades, then one day the spouse broke and stabbed them in their sleep- they couldn’t claim self-defence cause the victim was asleep, but there’s obvious mitigating factors. manslaughter allows the crown to prosecute, while still giving a judge scope to hand down a reasonable sentence.