:)
Homicide, murder, criminal negligence
Fri, 2010-07-09 08:26
#1
hsfreethinkers
Homicide, murder, criminal negligence
Fri, 2010-07-09 08:42
#2
The criminal Code of Canada is available here: http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc-text.html
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:06
#3
hsfreethinkers
[Link to original thread]Again. Legally speaking, manslaughter is a "reduced" murder charge. That is one of the things I thought was so bizarre about the confrontation with E. Tamaran. Criminal Negligence causing death, is a murder charge. So even within the strict definition of the law, when Tamaran used the term "murder" it does not matter if it was negligence causing death.
Tamaran was correct. Those who objected to the usage on the term on legalistic grounds, are simply ignorant of the law, even though they went through extreme efforts to assert that their knowledge was superior. I find ignorant people often assert falacies with the greatest self-assurance in their own authority.
As I said before, I was not surprised that someone who used the term pig consistently to describe police officers had a better understanding of fundamental legal principles and how they are applied than those who reject the use of the term.
The distinction, and why the terms are important, is that murder generally speaking implies an intention - "means to cause his death". Criminal negligence causing death, while homicide, is a situation where a person may not mean to cause death, yet "shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons". Of course, it doesn't change the facts of any particular crime, but the different charges / offences under the Code have different requirements.
So, for example, if we hear in the news that someone dies in prison under police supervision and we don't have much knowledge of the facts, it is quite something to assert it was murder as that implies the police intended to cause death. By asserting instead that it was more likely criminal negligence, one is expressing the view that they suspect the police did not intend to cause death, but instead were wanton or reckless.
As defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, murder is a culpable homicide with specific intentions.
Culpable homicide is defined as causing the death of a human being,
- By means of an unlawful act;
- By criminal negligence;
- By causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
- By wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.[1]
Culpable homicide is elevated to murder when
- The person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
- A person meant to cause the death of a human being or cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that person; or
- A person, for an unlawful objective, does anything he knows is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his objective without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.[2]
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:07
#4
hsfreethinkers
Thanks Caissa, but the other discussion was getting quite technical, with suggestions that some are ignorant of the law, so I thought it would help to post the relevant provisions and then we can figure out what the situation is.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:18
#5
hsfreethinkers
Criminal negligence
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Definition of “duty”
(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 202.
Causing death by criminal negligence
220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220; 1995, c. 39, s. 141.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:19
#6
hsfreethinkers
Homicide
222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.
Kinds of homicide
(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.
Non culpable homicide
(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.
Culpable homicide
(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.
Idem
(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
[...]
229. Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 212.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:40
#7
hsfreethinkers
I thought you'd have something more to say as you came down pretty hard suggesting others are "ignorant of the law". It appears you aren't correct. Criminal negligence isn't a murder charge. It falls under "culpable homicide", and there is signficant distinction between murder and criminal negligence.
The distinction, and why the terms are important, is that murder generally speaking implies an intention - "means to cause his death". Criminal negligence causing death, while homicide, is a situation where a person may not mean to cause death, yet "shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons". Of course, it doesn't change the facts of any particular crime, but the different charges / offences under the Code have different requirements.
So, for example, if we hear in the news that someone dies in prison under police supervision and we don't have much knowledge of the facts, it is quite something to assert it was murder as that implies the police intended to cause death. By asserting instead that it was more likely criminal negligence, one is expressing the view that they suspect the police did not intend to cause death, but instead were wanton or reckless.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:42
#8
Cueball
Yes, I have read all that before. Not the wiki, I mean the code.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:44
#9
hsfreethinkers
1) Homicide is causing someone to die
2) Culpable Homicide is defined in several ways, including criminal negligence
3) Culpable homicide is elevated to murder in several ways, and does not require someone to "mean" to cause death.
That is evident from the Code, but you still are not addressing my point.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:49
#10
Cueball
1) Homicide is causing someone to die
2) Culpable Homicide is defined in several ways, including criminal negligence
3) Culpable homicide is elevated to murder in several ways, and does not require someone to "mean" to cause death.
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
Fri, 2010-07-09 09:54
#11
Cueball
Hence, there have been occassions where drunk drivers have been charged with manslaughter because notwithstanding the fact that the person did not mean to kill anyone, they did kill someone in the commission of an unlawful act (drinking and driving).
So, in fact, all of these distinctions are fuzzy and highly dependent on how you interpret the "facts".
You seem to be asserting that the "criminal negligence" was not intentional (and therefore unlawful). We don't know that.
Fri, 2010-07-09 10:03
#12
hsfreethinkers
You seem to be asserting that the "criminal negligence" was not intentional (and therefore unlawful). We don't know that.
Your comment shows to me that you don't really understand what criminal negligence is. Regardless, I don't know what the facts are in this case, and I don't think the facts if known are even public record, so at the moment we don't know enough to say definitively whether it is likely murder, criminal negligence, or neither.
Fri, 2010-07-09 10:15
#13
Cueball
The point is that criminal negligence can be elevated to murder. The "murder" charge is not excluded by the fact that the culpable homicide might be caused by criminal negligence. Therefore, saying that whatever happened is not "murder" simply by benefit of the fact that the death was caused by criminal negligence is not correct.
You original point was that "criminal negligence" excluded the possibility of "murder". It does not.
Fri, 2010-07-09 10:39
#14
hsfreethinkers
The point is that criminal negligence can be elevated to murder. The "murder" charge is not excluded by the fact that the culpable homicide might be caused by criminal negligence. Therefore, saying that whatever happened is not "murder" simply by benefit of the fact that the death was caused by criminal negligence is not correct.
You original point was that "criminal negligence" excluded the possibility of "murder". It does not.
No, that wasn't my original point. My original point is that the intention to cause death may not be there, so it is perfectly acceptable to assert that in this case it *might* be criminal negligence and not murder. Actually, to be more accurate, my point was that some OTHER PERSON should be able to assert this without getting reported to the moderators and chastised for it.
Fri, 2010-07-09 11:05
#15
Cueball
Murdered? Are you saying the police forced the alcohol down his throat? They should have called an ambulance, if they noticed he was in distress but that's hardly murder, it's more like criminal negligence if anything. Tragic deaths of this kind happen everyday to people of all skin colours who drink excessively(especially grain alcohol - 90% and up) - whether in a home, or on the street, or in a jail cell. It's the waste of a young man's life to alcohol we should be mourning.
I think the moderator intervention was about a hyperbolic statement that concluded with an assertion that basically laid the responsibility on the victim while denying the racial angle as relevant, when in fact the point of the OP was that these kinds of tragic "accidents" (often caused by neglect) by people who are in positions of responsibility with a clear duty to provide assistance seem to happen to FN people on a regular basis.
Systemic prejudice as criminal negligence amounting to murder.
Fri, 2010-07-09 11:17
#16
No, that wasn't my original point. My original point is that the intention to cause death may not be there, so it is perfectly acceptable to assert that in this case it *might* be criminal negligence and not murder. Actually, to be more accurate, my point was that some OTHER PERSON should be able to assert this without getting reported to the moderators and chastised for it.
Aw man..
You're ignoring a couple of things;
1) The statement was made in a protected space where native people are suppposed to be able to express whatever they want using whatever terms they feel are warranted.
2) The person who challenged the use of the term used a bit of hyperbolae that probably offended a bit more than the technical point. And...
3) ...that person has since apologized for the misunderstanding, and seems to get it.
You and I and everyone else have the freedom to interpret the cops' responsibility for that man's death however we want,. so long as it is supported by what we know about the case. That still doesn't make it relevant in a space where people are supposed to be able to speak their mind without censure from people who don't understand their reality.
(edit) you beat me to the post, Cueball