Creationist Row Ends with Death

[Alyrium Denryle]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

There is a statutory defence of provocation in NSW law - Section 23 of the Crimes Act, if provocation is proven and the person would have otherwise been convicted of murder, directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

This could explain the Manslaughter charge. But even so, this is still bullshit. All they did was have an argument about religion.

Wait a fucking second. Being an intellectually honest proponent of evolution is "provocation" under aussie law? Wow, I always knew that Aussie law was fucked up...

[wautd]

5 years? Talk about a slap on the wrist

[Darth Wong]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

There is a statutory defence of provocation in NSW law - Section 23 of the Crimes Act, if provocation is proven and the person would have otherwise been convicted of murder, directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

This could explain the Manslaughter charge. But even so, this is still bullshit. All they did was have an argument about religion.

Wait a fucking second. Being an intellectually honest proponent of evolution is "provocation" under aussie law? Wow, I always knew that Aussie law was fucked up...

Frankly, I wouldn't want to bet against it being considered "provocation" under American law either. Especially in certain states.

To be quite honest, I strongly suspect that the "fighting words" doctrine, in conjunction with certain socially conservative regions of the country, could very well lead to a situation where you could get beaten to a pulp for saying "creationism is nonsense" and the assailant would get off scot free. Especially if he's drunk at the time, which is widely considered an excuse for bad behaviour for some goddamned reason.

[Master of Ossus]

Frankly, I wouldn't want to bet against it being considered "provocation" under American law either. Especially in certain states.

To be quite honest, I strongly suspect that the "fighting words" doctrine, in conjunction with certain socially conservative regions of the country, could very well lead to a situation where you could get beaten to a pulp for saying "creationism is nonsense" and the assailant would get off scot free. Especially if he's drunk at the time, which is widely considered an excuse for bad behaviour for some goddamned reason.

"Words alone" are not considered legally adequate provocation, in most American jurisdictions, to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. "Fighting words" has nothing to do with provocation for the purposes of murder charges. It's a completely separate doctrine that deals with whether someone can be charged for inciting violence through speech.

There are no legal grounds in any US jurisdiction I'm familiar with that would allow the defendant in this case to argue that he was acting under the influence of legal provocation sufficient to reduce the charge to manslaughter. I'm pretty sure Stravo would say the same thing.

[Patrick Degan]

Frankly, I wouldn't want to bet against it being considered "provocation" under American law either. Especially in certain states.

To be quite honest, I strongly suspect that the "fighting words" doctrine, in conjunction with certain socially conservative regions of the country, could very well lead to a situation where you could get beaten to a pulp for saying "creationism is nonsense" and the assailant would get off scot free. Especially if he's drunk at the time, which is widely considered an excuse for bad behaviour for some goddamned reason.

"Words alone" are not considered legally adequate provocation, in most American jurisdictions, to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. "Fighting words" has nothing to do with provocation for the purposes of murder charges. It's a completely separate doctrine that deals with whether someone can be charged for inciting violence through speech.

There are no legal grounds in any US jurisdiction I'm familiar with that would allow the defendant in this case to argue that he was acting under the influence of legal provocation sufficient to reduce the charge to manslaughter. I'm pretty sure Stravo would say the same thing.

All that is true enough. The plain meaning of the law argues that. It is, rather, quite possible for some dumbfuck judge with his Fundie head up his ass, a Roy Moore for example, to ignore the plain meaning of the law and rule otherwise.

[Enigma]

<snip>

And so, I expect, is British and Canadian law as well.

It isn't always the law that is to blame but those that interpret it and no nation is immune to abuses. Google "Matt Brownlee" "drunk driving" and "Ottawa" and you'll see such lapse in applying the law.

A short summary is that Matt in 1996 drove drunk and killed a Canadian senator's daughter and grandson. He received a seven year sentence for his crimes and was banned forever from driving. After his release, he continued to drive drunk and was arested several times but at least in one occasion got off scott free because he wasn't "criminally responsible because of his mental state caused by the 1996 drunk driving accident. As far as I know he's out and about free to commit another crime.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually, I missed the drunk bit. In order to commit a crime in the US you must have the mental state. Example in most US states the mental state for murder is knowingly or intentionally.

Being drunk can negate those two mental states, and bring it down to recklessly. If you recklessly kill someone then you have the mental state for manslaughter.

No, recklessness is sufficient for Murder-2, which does NOT require intent, and gross recklessness is sufficient for Murder-1 under the "depraved heart" theory. In either case, it would have been a much more satisfactory outcome than "accidental" manslaughter.

What we have here is just a difference in the terminlogy between states. In my state recklessly causing the death of another is manslaughter, and I assume you're using the statutes from your area, right?

[Master of Ossus]

No, recklessness is sufficient for Murder-2, which does NOT require intent, and gross recklessness is sufficient for Murder-1 under the "depraved heart" theory. In either case, it would have been a much more satisfactory outcome than "accidental" manslaughter.

What we have here is just a difference in the terminlogy between states. In my state recklessly causing the death of another is manslaughter, and I assume you're using the statutes from your area, right?

So far as I am aware, every state recognizes lesser degrees of murder which can include recklessness, and all states recognize that "depraved heart" murder does not require intent to kill but gross recklessness.

Wikipedia's article on murder confirms my definition:

To repeat, at common law murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought exists if the defendant acts with any of the following states of mind:

(i) Intent to kill; (ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm; (iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned and malignant heart); or (iv) Intent to commit a felony (felony-murder doctrine).

We can ask Stravo to be sure, but I've never heard of a state that doesn't recognize depraved heart murder doctrine.

Further down, you can read generic descriptions of American JDX's. This also confirms the existence of degrees of murder, some of which do not require premeditation.

Ironically, AUSTRALIA also recognizes depraved heart murder:

SECTION 18 1) a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime

What state do you live in that does not recognize homicide with extreme recklessness as murder?

Edit: I assume from your profile that you're in Utah.

From Utah's criminal code on murder.

(2) Criminal homicide constitutes murder if:
(a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another;
(b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another, the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another;
(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;
(d) (i) the actor is engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of any predicate offense, or is a party to the predicate offense;
(ii) a person other than a party as defined in Section 76-2-202 is killed in the course of the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of any predicate offense; and
(iii) the actor acted with the intent required as an element of the predicate offense;
(e) the actor recklessly causes the death of a peace officer while in the commission or attempted commission of:
(i) an assault against a peace officer under Section 76-5-102.4; or
(ii) interference with a peace officer while making a lawful arrest under Section 76-8-305

Emphasis mine.

I understand the source of confusion: Utah has apparently not adopted the Model Penal Code's mens rea states. Suffice it to say, the mens rea described in that passage is defined in other jurisdictions as a form of "recklesness," since the defendant would be consciously disregarding a known risk.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So far as I am aware, every state recognizes lesser degrees of murder which can include recklessness, and all states recognize that "depraved heart" murder does not require intent to kill but gross recklessness.

Wikipedia's article on murder confirms my definition:

I didn't say anything different. Murder, in Utah, is defined differently. The mens rea for murder in Utah is intentionally or knowingly.

(2) Criminal homicide constitutes murder if:
(a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another;

We can ask Stravo to be sure, but I've never heard of a state that doesn't recognize depraved heart murder doctrine.

I didn't contest that.

What state do you live in that does not recognize homicide with extreme recklessness as murder?

Edit: I assume from your profile that you're in Utah

Correct, I live in Utah. Homicide with recklessness is considered manslaughter.

76-5-205. Manslaughter.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter if the actor:
(a) recklessly causes the death of another;
(b) commits a homicide which would be murder, but the offense is reduced pursuant to Subsection 76-5-203(4); or
(c) commits murder, but special mitigation is established under Section 76-5-205.5.
(2) Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

From Utah's criminal code on murder.

(2) Criminal homicide constitutes murder if:
(a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another; (b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another, the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another;
(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;
(d) (i) the actor is engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of any predicate offense, or is a party to the predicate offense;
(ii) a person other than a party as defined in Section 76-2-202 is killed in the course of the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of any predicate offense; and
(iii) the actor acted with the intent required as an element of the predicate offense;
(e) the actor recklessly causes the death of a peace officer while in the commission or attempted commission of:
(i) an assault against a peace officer under Section 76-5-102.4; or
(ii) interference with a peace officer while making a lawful arrest under Section 76-8-305

Emphasis mine.

I understand the source of confusion: Utah has apparently not adopted the Model Penal Code's mens rea states. Suffice it to say, the mens rea described in that passage is defined in other jurisdictions as a form of "recklesness," since the defendant would be consciously disregarding a known risk.

Exactly. Mens rea is apart of Utah's code, I put the mental state in italics in the statute that you quoted above.

The mental states in Utah are as follows.

Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence

Like I said before there's just a difference in terminology.

[Master of Ossus]

The mental states in Utah are as follows.

Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence

Like I said before there's just a difference in terminology.

Right, but substantively Utah still recognizes that recklessness is sufficient for murder (which they oddly don't divide into very many degrees)--they just call it knowledge when everywhere else calls it recklessness.

Because of the comparative unanimity of defining "recklessness" within criminal statutes, I think it's fair to characterize gross recklessness as being sufficient for a murder charge in the United States. An individual state may call it by another name, but it's still conscious disregard of a known risk.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Right, but substantively Utah still recognizes that recklessness is sufficient for murder (which they oddly don't divide into very many degrees)--they just call it knowledge when everywhere else calls it recklessness.

No. It recognizes that it is sufficient for criminal homicide, and recklessness makes it manslaughter. Also, knowledge is defined in the Utah code book, and it is anything but recklessness.

76-2-103. Definitions.
A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(3) Recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Because of the comparative unanimity of defining "recklessness" within criminal statutes, I think it's fair to characterize gross recklessness as being sufficient for a murder charge in the United States. An individual state may call it by another name, but it's still conscious disregard of a known risk.

That's fine if you want to call it murder. Given the very basic definition of murder, the unlawful killing of another person, then it works. I wasn't discussing that though. I was under the impression that we were speaking from the knowledge about our local court system.

[Master of Ossus]

Recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Compare the requirements of depraved indifference homicide, under Utah law, with the definition of recklessness.

(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;

Sorry, but the mens rea requirement for depraved indifference homicide IS recklessness, even by Utah's definition of "recklessness." Depraved indifference homicde requires that the actor "knowingly engag[e] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death" and "recklessness" is defined by someone's "consciously disregard[ing] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [...] the result will occur." That is precisely recklessness--they just replaced "consciously disregards" with "knowingly engages in," and replaced "a substantial and unjustifiable risk" with "grave risk of death." Those seem like equivalent formulations, since knowledge and recklessness differ only in the degree of certainty required by a defendant. The term "knowingly" in the Utah statute therefore seems to be an artefact of earlier drafting that wasn't properly updated after the adoption of the Model Penal Code's mens rea definitions.

I think this pretty well vindicates my position, since knowingly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death is therefore (i.e., recklessness) is therefore sufficient to constitute murder, even in Utah.

I suppose that depending on how Utah courts have interpreted "grave risk" it may actually require "reasonable certainty," in which case by common law you'd be correct, but realistically "grave risk" doesn't strike me as an equivalent formulation to "reasonable certainty." It seems like a sort of heightened "substantial and unjustifiable" risk, which in turn seems to be equivalent to "gross recklessness."

[Kamakazie Sith]

Compare the requirements of depraved indifference homicide, under Utah law, with the definition of recklessness.

MoO, under Utah law homicide is not murder. Murder is one of the possible forms of criminal homicide.

Criminal homicide is aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, child abuse homicide, homicide by assault, negligent homicide, or automobile homicide.

(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;

Sorry, but the mens rea requirement for depraved indifference homicide IS recklessness, even by Utah's definition of "recklessness."
[/quote]

Incorrect. The mens rea for what you just quoted is knowingly. The depraved indifference in the conduct, and not the mental state.

Depraved indifference homicde requires that the actor "knowingly engag[e] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death" and "recklessness" is defined by someone's "consciously disregard[ing] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [...] the result will occur." That is precisely recklessness--they just replaced "consciously disregards" with "knowingly engages in," and replaced "a substantial and unjustifiable risk" with "grave risk of death." Those seem like equivalent formulations, since knowledge and recklessness differ only in the degree of certainty required by a defendant. The term "knowingly" in the Utah statute therefore seems to be an artefact of earlier drafting that wasn't properly updated after the adoption of the Model Penal Code's mens rea definitions.

Again, you're trying to make depraved indifference the mental state when it is in fact the conduct, or the actus reas.

In other words if you take a firearm and start firing wildly into an active building then you can be charged if you kill someone even though you would say "I wasn't aiming at anyone".

If you're checking your gun, and you fail to make it safe and it discharges killing your neighbor then you can be charged with manslaughter.

I think this pretty well vindicates my position, since knowingly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death is therefore (i.e., recklessness) is therefore sufficient to constitute murder, even in Utah.

It doesn't at all. The mental states are clearly defined. Depraved indifference is not among them.

[Master of Ossus]

MoO, under Utah law homicide is not murder. Murder is one of the possible forms of criminal homicide.

Criminal homicide is aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, child abuse homicide, homicide by assault, negligent homicide, or automobile homicide.

Depraved indifference is a form of criminal homicide in Utah, but it's one that constitutes murder. I have repeatedly quoted the statute.

(2) Criminal homicide constitutes murder if:
(a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another;
(b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another, the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another;
(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;[...]

Incorrect. The mens rea for what you just quoted is knowingly. The depraved indifference in the conduct, and not the mental state.

If you read it as a result element, it's highly problematic (see below).

Depraved indifference homicde requires that the actor "knowingly engag[e] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death" and "recklessness" is defined by someone's "consciously disregard[ing] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [...] the result will occur." That is precisely recklessness--they just replaced "consciously disregards" with "knowingly engages in," and replaced "a substantial and unjustifiable risk" with "grave risk of death." Those seem like equivalent formulations, since knowledge and recklessness differ only in the degree of certainty required by a defendant. The term "knowingly" in the Utah statute therefore seems to be an artefact of earlier drafting that wasn't properly updated after the adoption of the Model Penal Code's mens rea definitions.

Again, you're trying to make depraved indifference the mental state when it is in fact the conduct, or the actus reas.

[snip]

The mental states are clearly defined. Depraved indifference is not among them.

RECKLESSNESS is a mental state, and the mens rea requirement for depraved indifference is "knowingly engag[ing] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another." Knowingly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of a result element IS recklessness. The statute is poorly written, but you cannot read a statute by picking out "key words" and totally ignoring the rest of it. This is the mental state. You are right that the actor must also be acting under circumstances evidencing depraved indifference, but the mental state itself is recklessness--the knowing engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another.

Read in its entirety, the actor must KNOWINGLY (eg., consciously) engage in conduct which creates a grave risk of death. If you read the sentence as a whole, that's recklessness. Then the next part is a result element (the conduct has to actually kill someone).

Your reading of the statute breaks down fairly quickly, since knowledge is defined as only referring to "the nature of [the actor's] conduct or the existing circumstances." Creating a grave risk of death is a RESULT of conduct, and has nothing to do with existing circumstances or the nature of his conduct. Indeed, by definition one CANNOT know the outcome of one's conduct--a critical brick on which the Model Penal Code relied when it defined knowledge as it did.

I think your reading of the statute is problematic for this reason, and particularly in context of other American jurisdictions which describe recklessness as being sufficient to constitute murder under the depraved heart or depraved indifference theory.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Depraved indifference is a form of criminal homicide in Utah, but it's one that constitutes murder. I have repeatedly quoted the statute.

No, depraved indifference is one of the actus reas for murder.

(2) Criminal homicide constitutes murder if:
(a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another;
(b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another, the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another;
(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;[...]

I put the actus reas in italics. The mental state must still be knowingly in order to be charged with murder.

Depraved indifference homicde requires that the actor "knowingly engag[e] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death" and "recklessness" is defined by someone's "consciously disregard[ing] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [...] the result will occur." That is precisely recklessness--they just replaced "consciously disregards" with "knowingly engages in," and replaced "a substantial and unjustifiable risk" with "grave risk of death." Those seem like equivalent formulations, since knowledge and recklessness differ only in the degree of certainty required by a defendant. The term "knowingly" in the Utah statute therefore seems to be an artefact of earlier drafting that wasn't properly updated after the adoption of the Model Penal Code's mens rea definitions.

They replaced it because it is different. You can't char

Again, you're trying to make depraved indifference the mental state when it is in fact the conduct, or the actus reas.

[snip]

The mental states are clearly defined. Depraved indifference is not among them.

RECKLESSNESS is a mental state, and the mens rea requirement for depraved indifference is "knowingly engag[ing] in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another."

Yes, it is. Notice how recklessness isn't among the mental states for murder. Utah's code is layed out, and if they wanted "depraved indifference" to mean recklessnes then they would have defined it as such in the definitions section. However, you will find that depraved indifference is only mentioned under the murder statute. The section that you have quoted several times that clearly defines the mental state, and the act.

(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;

It doesn't talk about recklessness at all. It simply says that the actor is engaged in an action that is likely to cause the result, and in doing so shows that they do not care. This statute was meant to close the hole in prosecution for gang members that conduct drive by shootings.

It's legal talk, but because of the weakness in our criminal system crimes have to be explained in almost every possible way otherwise a defense can be found.

Knowingly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of a result element IS recklessness.

No, it's not. You're not being reckless if you're doing something that you know will probably cause a specific result.

[qyuote]
The statute is poorly written, but you cannot read a statute by picking out "key words" and totally ignoring the rest of it. This is the mental state. You are right that the actor must also be acting under circumstances evidencing depraved indifference, but the mental state itself is recklessness--the knowing engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another.
[/quote]

Yes, you can. That's why the criminal code, and all criminal codes in the United States have a definition section. This is so you can recognize the things that make certain conduct and mental states crimes.

Read in its entirety, the actor must KNOWINGLY (eg., consciously) engage in conduct which creates a grave risk of death. If you read the sentence as a whole, that's recklessness. Then the next part is a result element (the conduct has to actually kill someone).

No, MoO. The Utah code is written specifically to include the mental states I've listed. Those are they ONLY mental states unless otherwise defined in the definition section of that chapter. You'll notice that depraved indifference is not defined anywhere. Therefore, the mental state is knowingly, and the act is whatever action shows an depraved indifference, like drive by shootings.

Your reading of the statute breaks down fairly quickly, since knowledge is defined as only referring to "the nature of [the actor's] conduct or the existing circumstances." Creating a grave risk of death is a RESULT of conduct, and has nothing to do with existing circumstances or the nature of his conduct. Indeed, by definition one CANNOT know the outcome of one's conduct--a critical brick on which the Model Penal Code relied when it defined knowledge as it did.

76-2-101. Requirements of criminal conduct and criminal responsibility.
(1) (a) A person is not guilty of an offense unless the person's conduct is prohibited by law; and
(b) (i) the person acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, as the definition of the offense requires; or
(ii) the person's acts constitute an offense involving strict liability.
(2) These standards of criminal responsibility do not apply to the violations set forth in Title 41, Chapter 6a, Traffic Code, unless specifically provided by law.

Now if you can find something that I've missed where depraved indifference is defined as a mental state then I'll concede, but it's not. The mental state for murder, and all the acts that can constitute murder are clearly listed.

I think your reading of the statute is problematic for this reason, and particularly in context of other American jurisdictions which describe recklessness as being sufficient to constitute murder under the depraved heart or depraved indifference theory.

Here's what I think, MoO. Your reading of the statute is problematic because you're not educated in Utah law. This is exactly why states have their own educational requirements for police officers, and attorneys, etc.