Yeah I was just watching the news and this dude killed this other dude on mistake and didn't go to jail so I was just wondering you opinion on this subject.
Ah, the thing that in my language is called 'uagtsomt manddrab'... Which basically translates to unintended manslaughter. Many things fall under that definition... Here, there are laws and punishments for that too. Just because you didn't intend to kill someone, you still get punished.
And a smaller punishment is fair, I think. You are getting punished for your carelessness.
Did this man get punished at all? I think accidental murder should be punished depending on the circumstances. If it was careless and due to rage or something, should still be punished. But I agree, not as harshly. But somehow the family is going to need to feel some justice, I think...
what if a man walks out of a store, and a biker rides past him, but the biker is about to hit the door, so he moves onto the street, causing a car to swerve and hit an oil tanker, then there are these welders who make a spark and catch the oil on fire, and then everybody suffocates except the man. Should the man go to jail?
There seems to be this confusion between the terms "murder" and "killing" however these terms are not equivalent. Certainly you have to kill someone to have murdered them, but killing someone does not imply that you murdered them. The term murder has criminal and moral implications/connotations whereas killing does not necessarily have these. Example: A police officer kills a man wielding an AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall. The officer certainly killed the man, but he did not murder him.
A secure judgment from a court of law indicates that a pure conviction needs
1. a strong cross-examination that gives a good background as to what crime occurred.
2. Irrefutable evidence that shows that the crime was committed by that individual.
3. A clear and firm motive as to why that person committed the crime.
Now we can see that if witnesses say that the man killed him by accident, the #3 is taken out. Unless the man confesses to that crime. The #2 wouldn't be that strong if witnesses say he murdered on accident. If there were no witnesses to the scene of the murder we have to rely on evidence alone. #3 obviously cannot be by itself, unless of course the man confessed to the crime.
SO, the guy killed him on accident. He wouldn't get punished the highest count for murder he will be under accidental murder, which he should serve some sort of term. Now his charge was nothing, it had to be accidental with an opposite #1, no #2, and of course no #3.
For this court hearing, there was no evidence to back up if it was an accident or not, so he was free. Simple as that. Not saying that he committed a murder and made it seem like an accident, just pointing out that, with enough evidence, you can put any person behind bars, so long as it pertains to a particular crime.
In Danish law, there's several definitions of murder. The two maintypes are:
Intentional killing (manslaughter (or murder in common speech)), which can receive sentences after §237 with jail up till lifetime. This definition has the intention of killing included.
Unintentional killing (or unintended manslaughter), which can receive sentences after §241 with a sentence limit of up till 4 months of prison (yet up till 8 years under acute circumstances). This definition withholds only the lack attention and common awakedness.
[i]That was total fail in my translation skills. I'm good at English, but not at translating... At least two of the words there are just completely wrong. And I even used a dictionary... I hope you understood my post anyway.
It depends on his family. If the family charges they will most definitely win and the guy will go to jail. I don't like murder period accidental or not.
Zophia mentioned the most important part: Intention.
The reason you need both action and motive to establish murder is to prove beyond reasonable doubt intention. Since we can't read the minds of people to establish intention absolutely, a judgement of whether an action was intentional or not requires interpretation.
Not accurate. The stress of being under interrogation is enough to set off the alarms that you're lying. Plus, there are ways to train yourself to "beat the box". I also think the person whom they want to take the test has to sign a consent form first.
