Panta Pei

Again, as to the probable cause evidence resulting in the charge of murder-1 (capital murder in my jurisdiction FYI, FWIW), let me just reiterate the facts as presented in the news articles:

This defendant (waves at Katey ~ look no gender id ) left two young children in a car in the heat of the day for approximately two hours.

There is no evidence that this act was inadvertent or accidental, therefore the initial act was premeditated, intentional felonious child abuse (based on the 'reasonable and prudent person' common standard).

Further, the resulting action from this intentional child abuse was death. The combined nature of committing a felonious crime (child abuse) resulting in death is a capital offense (murder-1).

Of course, I am in agreement that the lesser manslaughter option is available to the jury. However, there is ample probable cause evidence for the charge of murder-1 based on the elements of intent and result of the initial abuse.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard the jury must consider and we must wait for the actual trial for the outcome.

BTW causing the intentional suffering of others is immoral, IMHO, and it really is as simple as that.

TooBad

Perhaps this doesn't pertain to this case, but is that how these things work? Whatever I do is considered intentional unless I can show otherwise? I flooded my kitchen recently. I'm not sure I could adduce any evidence to the effect that it was "inadvertent", but it was inadvertent all the same. It seems curious that the burden of proof should be placed on the defendant.

Panta Pei

Reasonableness is the open standard.

Not having skills or astute plumbing knowledge may lead to an inadvertent flooding.

Placing your two young children in a car exposed to high heat for approximately two hours is not perceived as inadvertent.

A 'reasonable and prudent person' would comprehend the result of the action and intentionally avoid pursuing this course.

No special knowledge is required take necessary steps to remove the children from the abusive nature of the act committed.

Intent can be surmised and articulated by one's action.

Doubting Didymus

Panta Pei's comments are extremely interesting to me. Is this really how the legal system works in America? If so, I can't quite yet see exactly when manslaughter would apply. Is a drunk driver who hits a pedestrian committing murder, or manslaughter in your country? (I'm serious, I actually don't know). He is knowingly committing a crime, obviously, and it results in a death. If he is therefore a murderer, where is the line drawn? What about a bag snatcher who causes a heart attack in an elderly man? I would have said 'full weight of the manslaughter penalty!' but not have considered it murder. What about my hypothetical sleepwalker in the above example?

If the line is not drawn at intention to kill, where is it drawn, legally speaking? Is it decided case by case?

As an additional note: your comments contain the unspoken premise that she intentionally abused her children. You could well be right, but I would like to see this further discussed. Can it be said that this woman intentionally abused her children, or is it more likely that she simply, stupidly forgot? (or does it matter, legally speaking. Is it the same thing in the eyes of the law?)

Mochaloca

Panta Pei: This analysis is incorrect because 1st degree murder is a "specific intent" crime. This requires that the prosecution prove she intended to kill her children by placing them in the car under those circumstances.

Admittedly I don't know all the facts, however, on the face of it, I think the most the prosecution could prove is second degree murder. Even this would be difficult because they have to prove "malice aforethought." (basically that she knew her actions COULD result in the kids death, but took the risk anyway.

Obviously, manslaughter is a given as that is bascially "criminal negligence."

M.

Doubting Didymus

Mochaloca seems to know what they are talking about, but now I am in danger of committing an argument from misplaced authority.

Can anyone supply or link to definitions of 'manslaughter', 'murder 2' and 'murder 1'? (Is there a murder 3 or 4?) It is very confusing for a non-American who is not used to the American usage to comment on the moral implications of choosing between these different punishments.

Panta Pei

Doubting Didymus;

"Is it decided case by case?"

Yes.

Mochaloca:

I have identified and spelled out the conditions of the charge that would be brought in the jurisdiction in which I work (First Judicial of Harrison County State of MS)

Also, the defendant is being charged with murder-1 in the jurisdiction in which she committed the act. I have merely provided the probable cause evidence to articulate the charge. I was not providing a precognitive view of what charge the prosecution could prove she was guilty of to a particular jury.

Your assertion that my analysis is incorrect seems to be based on your opinion and not on the totality of the information provided in the article or consideration of the nuances of the laws of differing states.

Your results may vary.



BTW Mississippi does not have the same 'varying degrees' of the assorted crimes and there exist gray areas that are subject to jury review.

In any event, probable cause is a much lower standard to make the initial arrest.

I hope this provides more clarity to the issue.

Doubting Didymus

Not really. Please tell me what the difference is between manslaughter, murder 2 and murder1.

The way I understand the issue currently is: If I am throwing rocks at someone's house I am commiting a crime. If someone in the house dies but I didn't intend for that to happen it's manslaughter. If I throw rocks with preconceived malice wanting to hurt someone and they die, it's murder2. If I throw rocks intending to kill someone and I manage, it's murder1.

This makes sense to me, but am I wrong? Using the above guidelines, the woman is a manslaughterer, no?

If not, please tell me where I have gone wrong.

Pretend I come from a different country.

Panta Pei

I'll try harder for Doubting Didymus.

First of all, assorted states have slightly varying definitions. For instance, MS has no varying degrees of Murder (as in the terminology such as class A, murder-1, murder-2, etc.).

There is either Murder, which is punishable by life imprisonment or Capital Murder, which is punishable by death or life with or without parole.

Since we seem to be concentrating on Murder v. Manslaughter on this thread, I will do my best to articulate the general requirements of each. Keep in mind that, as I posted earlier, there are gray areas to be considered on a case by case basis (IOW ~ weird shit happens)

Manslaughter ~ did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill without malice and in the heat of passion a human being by (method) or by culpable negligence. Subject to fine and imprisonment up to 20 years.

Murder ~ did feloniously, willfully and unlawfully:

a. with deliberate design to cause death to a human being or

b. in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without premeditation to effect the death of victim or

c. while engaged in a felony (or attempt to commit a felony) kill victim.

As you can see by these statutes, the defendant's acts as described in the article fit both manslaughter and murder.

For the jury to consider any of the statutes, the defendant has to be initially charged and indicted for Murder.

Manslaughter will still be on the table for the jury to consider given more specific facts and circumstances to include the psych eval of the defendant (that's what defense attys are for, right Mochaloca? )

Debating scenarios is not the intention of my posts as we could probably come up with all sorts of bizarre variations.

If it helps, there are certain times when I have to consult the D.A. for instructions on how to proceed.

[ edited to add very important distinctions

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]</p>

Mochaloca

Panta Pei: Sorry! I seemed to have made some unwarranted assumptions. From a "probable cause" perspective you are right. Coming from a defense perspective I usually analyze a case based on what I think the prosecution can prove. Also, even though most states' criminal statutes are arranged differently, they mostly follow the same pattern. In MS, apparently, your "capital" murder statutes are very similar to CA's first degree murder statute. Your basic murder statute looks like it encompasses CA's 1st & 2nd degree murder without the death penalty.

While I'm not surprised the DA there is going for a capital conviction, I still think that's going to be a hard sell. In order to do so, the DA is going to have to prove "felony child abuse." Like you say, you never know what a jury's going to do.

I guess for most people, it's hard to believe anyone could be...for lack of a better word..stupid enough to do what this mother did and not know the consequences. Unfortunately, in my line of work I run across these types of people all the time. Therefore, I don't really see these people as murderers. Sometimes I do think there should be a crime of "felony stupid" on the books. But, boy, then you'd really see some crowded jail cells!

Hasta...

M.