Manslaughter

Last updated

Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC. [1]

Contents

The definition of manslaughter differs among legal jurisdictions.

Types

Voluntary

For voluntary manslaughter, the offender had intent to kill or seriously harm, but acted "in the moment" under circumstances that could cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. [2] There are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, such as when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. [3] Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.

The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit homicide. This is sometimes described as a crime of passion. [4] In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice. [5]

Assisted suicide

Assisted suicide is suicide committed with the aid of another person, sometimes a physician.

In some places, including parts of the United States, [6] assisted suicide is punishable as manslaughter. In other countries such as Switzerland [7] and Canada, [8] and in some U.S. states, [6] as long as legal safeguards are observed, assisted suicide is legal.

Involuntary

Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

Constructive

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. [9] It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

For example, a person who fails to stop at a red traffic light while driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury [10] ). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless driving or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter. The DPP v Newbury case had redefined the meaning of murder in the Australian constitution, and reformed in order to include a mens rea assessment.

Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend on whether "excessive force" was used or other factors.

As manslaughter is not defined by legislation in Australia, common law decisions provide the basis for determining whether an act resulting in death amounts to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. [11] To be found guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused must be shown to have committed an unlawful act which is contrary to the criminal law, [12] and that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have known that by their act, they were exposing the victim to an "appreciable risk of serious injury". [13]

Criminally negligent

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, and gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. [14] A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts themselves in a position where they will be unaware of facts which would render them liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies ( R v Adomako and R v Perreau). [15] Another example could be leaving a child locked in a car on a hot day. [16]

Vehicular and intoxicated

In some jurisdictions, such as some U.S. States, [17] [18] [19] [20] there exists the specific crime of vehicular or intoxication manslaughter. An equivalent in Canada is causing death by criminal negligence [21] under the Criminal Code, punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

On the mens rea , or state of mind, or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors), manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter . [22] However, this is not the case in all jurisdictions, for example, in the U.S. state of Florida. [23]

In some jurisdictions, [24] such as the U.K., [25] Canada, [26] [27] and some Australian states, [28] "adequate provocation" may be a partial defense to a charge of murder, which, if accepted by the jury, would convert what might otherwise have been a murder charge into manslaughter.

National standards

Australia

In Australia, specifically New South Wales, manslaughter is referred to, however not defined, in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). [29]

Manslaughter exists in two forms in New South Wales: Voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter. In New South Wales, in cases of voluntary manslaughter, both the actus reus (literally guilty act) and mens rea (literally guilty mind) for murder are proven but the defendant has a partial defence, such as extreme provocation or diminished responsibility. [30] [11] : [51]–[65]  In cases of involuntary manslaughter, the actus reus for murder is present but there is insufficient mens rea to establish such a charge.

There are two categories of involuntary manslaughter at common law: manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act and manslaughter by criminal negligence. The authority for the actus reus and mens rea of involuntary manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act is the High Court of Australia case of Wilson v R. [31] This case determined that the act that caused the death must breach the criminal law and that the act must carry an appreciable risk of serious injury (actus reus). Regarding the mens rea, the court held that the accused must intend to commit the unlawful act and that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have realised or recognised that the act carried an appreciable risk of serious injury. Manslaughter by criminal negligence, on the other hand, finds its authority in the Victorian case of Nydam v R, [32] confirmed by the High Court of Australia in R v Lavender [14] and Burns v R. [33] In Nydam v R, [32] the Court described the office at [445] in the following terms:

In order to establish manslaughter by criminal negligence, it is sufficient if the prosecution shows that the act which caused the death was done by the accused consciously and voluntarily, without any intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm but in circumstances which involved such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment. [32]

Canada

Canadian law distinguishes between justifiable (e.g., self-defence), accidental, and culpable homicide. If a death is deemed a culpable homicide, it generally falls under one of four categories (first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, and infanticide). [34]

Canadian law defines manslaughter as "a homicide committed without the intention to cause death, although there may have been an intention to cause harm".[ citation needed ] There are two broad categories of manslaughter: unlawful act, and criminal negligence.

Unlawful act is when a person commits a crime that unintentionally results in the death of another person. [35]

Criminal negligence is when the homicide was the result of an act that showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives of others. [36]

England and Wales

In English law, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder. In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

The Homicide Act 1957 and Coroners and Justice Act 2009 are relevant acts.

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant avails themself of two statutory defences described in the Homicide Act 1957 (diminished responsibility and a suicide pact; provocation was a third but this was replaced by loss of control in 2010).

Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the agent has no intention (mens rea) of committing murder but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. The crime of involuntary manslaughter can be sub-divided into two main categories; constructive manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.

United States

Manslaughter is a crime in the United States. Definitions can vary among jurisdictions, but the U.S. follows the general principle that manslaughter involves causing the death of another person in a manner less culpable than murder, and observes the distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Japan

Manslaughter is a crime in Japan under the title of "injury causing death". It is defined as "causing another person to suffer injury resulting in death". The minimum penalty for manslaughter is three years, with a de facto maximum of life in prison since no maximum is specified. [37]

Civil law

Some civil law jurisdictions, such as the French Code, [38] use murder (intentional homicide) [39] [40] [41] or manslaughter (culpable homicide), [42] [43] [44] and a Felony-Murder (homicide praeter-intentionnel). [45] [46] [47] Italian criminal law [48] also provides for murder (intentional homicide, art. 575 c.p.), [49] [50] Felony-Murder (homicide "preterintenzionale" art. 584 c.p.) [51] [52] and manslaughter (homicide "colposo" art. 589 c.p.): [53] [54]

Historical distinction from murder

A legal distinction between intentional and unintentional homicide was introduced in Athenian law in 409 BC, [55] when the legal code of Draco indicated that intentional homicide (hekousios phonos or phonos ek pronoias) was punishable by death. The language is ambiguous as to unintentional homicide (akousios phonos), but it may have been punishable by exile. [56] [57] However, academic David D Phillips says that these categories "do not correspond to the common-law categories of murder and manslaughter either in their original significance or in their present definitions", because under Athenian law intentional homicide would include both murder and voluntary manslaughter. [57]

Anglo-Saxon law recognised particular degrees of homicide, with the worst being forsteall (killing by ambush). [58] Murdra was a separate type of aggravated (secret) homicide under Anglo-Saxon law; William the Conqueror defined it narrowly as a fine that would be charged on a hundred following the slaying of a foreigner (originally a Norman, but intermarriage would end the distinction between Normans and English by the 13th century). [58] By 1348, the association between murdrum and malice aforethought emerged. [58]

"Manslaughter" as a general term for homicide was in use in medieval England by the late 1200s, during which time a distinction was forming between homicide committed in necessary self-defence (pardoned without culpability) and homicide committed by accident (pardoned but with moral blame). [58] From 1390, homicide in necessary self-defence or by misadventure became "pardons of course", meaning that the Chancery would issue them by default. [58] Homicide in necessary self-defence would later be acquitted, rather than pardoned. [58] The use of "manslaughter" to cover homicides other than murder emerged by 1547, in a statute. [58] Edward Coke confirms this distinction in The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, which remains "the authoritative starting point for any examination of the law of homicide" in the United Kingdom and other common law countries. [59]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder</span> Unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice, such as in the case of voluntary manslaughter brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

In criminal law, actus reus, Latin for "guilty act", is one of the elements normally required to prove commission of a crime in common law jurisdictions, the other being Latin: mens rea. In the United States, it is sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime.

In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice. It "affects the quality of the actor's state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness."

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

Culpable homicide is a categorisation of certain offences in various jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Nations which involves the homicide either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence. Unusually for those legal systems which have originated or been influenced during rule by the United Kingdom, the name of the offence associates with Scots law rather than English law.

In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act.

Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination" required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few. Insofar as the term is still in use, it has a technical meaning that has changed substantially over time.

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human in which the offender acted in the heat of passion, a state that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot reasonably control their emotions. Voluntary manslaughter is one of two main types of manslaughter, the other being involuntary manslaughter.

In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

Although the legal system of Singapore is a common law system, the criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature and historically derives largely from the Indian penal code. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating, are set out in the Singaporean Penal Code. Other serious offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

In Australia, murder is a criminal offence where a person, by a voluntary act or omission, causes the death of another person with either intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life. It may also arise in circumstances where the accused was committing, or assisting in the commission, of a different serious crime that results in a person's death. It is usually punished by life imprisonment. Australia is a federal nation and the law of murder is mostly regulated under the law of its constituent states and territories. There is also federal murder offence available in limited circumstances.

In the United States, the law for murder varies by jurisdiction. In many US jurisdictions there is a hierarchy of acts, known collectively as homicide, of which first-degree murder and felony murder are the most serious, followed by second-degree murder and, in a few states, third-degree murder, which in other states is divided into voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter such as reckless homicide and negligent homicide, which are the least serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime. However, because there are at least 52 relevant jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this is a considerable simplification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of the United States</span>

The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution. Generally there are two systems of criminal law to which a person maybe subject; the most frequent is state criminal law, and the other is federal law.

English law contains homicide offences – those acts involving the death of another person. For a crime to be considered homicide, it must take place after the victim's legally recognised birth, and before their legal death. There is also the usually uncontroversial requirement that the victim be under the "King's peace". The death must be causally linked to the actions of the defendant. Since the abolition of the year and a day rule, there is no maximum time period between any act being committed and the victim's death, so long as the former caused the latter.

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

Manslaughter is a crime in the United States. Definitions can vary among jurisdictions, but manslaughter is invariably the act of causing the death of another person in a manner less culpable than murder. Three types of unlawful killings constitute manslaughter. First, there is voluntary manslaughter which is an intentional homicide committed in "sudden heat of passion" as the result of adequate provocation. Second, there is the form of involuntary manslaughter which is an unintentional homicide that was committed in a criminally negligent manner. Finally, there is the form of involuntary manslaughter which is an unintentional homicide that occurred during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act which does not amount to a felony.

The categorical test is a legal standard for determining whether there has been adequate provocation to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. Traditionally, the mens rea for murder was malice aforethought. While murder and voluntary manslaughter are both intentional homicides, adequate provocation mitigates a defendant's culpability. Adequate provocation is a legal requirement for a murder charge to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. The test for adequate provocation varies across jurisdictions and has changed over time. The categorical approach is based on common law principles, but most courts today apply less restrictive tests, such as the extreme emotional disturbance test in Model Penal Code jurisdictions.

References

  1. ↑ Ehrenberg, Victor (1973) [1968]. From Solon to Socrates: Greek History and Civilization During the 6th and 5th Centuries BCE (Second ed.). New York: Routledge. p. 57. ISBN   978-0-415-04024-2 . Retrieved 31 December 2015.
  2. ↑ Weber, Jack K. (1 July 1981). "Some Provoking Aspects of Voluntary Manslaughter Law". Anglo-American Law Review. 10 (3): 159. doi:10.1177/147377958101000302. S2CID   157180471.
  3. ↑ Allen, Michael (2013). Textbook on Criminal Law (12 ed.). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199669295 . Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  4. ↑ Dressler, Joshua (Summer 1982). "Rethinking heat of passion: A defense in search of a rationale". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 73 (2): 421–470. doi:10.2307/1143104. JSTOR   1143104. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  5. ↑ Barkan, Steven E.; Bryjak, George J. (2009). Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice: What Every American Should Know. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN   9780763755744 . Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  6. 1 2 "Patients Rights Council". Assisted Suicide Laws in the United States. 6 January 2017. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  7. ↑ Sarchet, Penny (22 September 2014). "Tourism to Switzerland for assisted suicide is growing, often for nonfatal diseases". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  8. ↑ "Assisted Suicide". End of Life Law & Policy in Canada. Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  9. ↑ "Involuntary Manslaughter". IPSA LOQUITUR. 15 August 2019. Retrieved 23 October 2019.
  10. ↑ [1977] AC 500.
  11. 1 2 Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317 at [46], Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW,Australia).
  12. ↑ Wilson v R [1992] HCA 31 , (1992) 174 CLR 313 per Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ at [2], High Court (Australia).
  13. ↑ Wilson v R [1992] HCA 31 , (1992) 174 CLR 313 per Mason CJ, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ at [48], High Court (Australia).
  14. 1 2 R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37 , (2005) 222 CLR 67 at [17], [60], [72], [136](4 August 2005), High Court (Australia).
  15. ↑ R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6 , [1994] 3 WLR 288, House of Lords (UK).
  16. ↑ Burke, Minyvonne (September 22, 2022). "Alabama grandfather is charged in hot car death of toddler, drove vehicle 3 times that day, prosecutor says". NBC News . Archived from the original on October 6, 2022. Retrieved July 30, 2023.
  17. ↑ See, e.g., "New York Penal Code, Sec. 125.13. Vehicular manslaughter in the first degree". New York State Senate. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  18. ↑ See also "California Penal Code, Sec. 192(c)". California Legislative Information. California Legislature. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  19. ↑ See also "Wisconsin Statutes, Sec. 940.09. Homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm". Wisconsin State Legislature. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  20. ↑ See also "Texas Penal Code, Sec. 49.08. Intoxication Manslaughter". Texas State Legislature. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  21. ↑ "Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), Sec. 220, Causing Death by Criminal Negligence". Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  22. ↑ "Manslaughter". Wex. Cornell Law School. July 2009. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  23. ↑ "Florida Statutes, Sec. 782.07. Manslaughter". Online Sunshine. State of Florida. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  24. ↑ Berman, Mitchell N. (2011). "Provocation as a Partial Justification and Partial Excuse". Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. University of Pennsylvania Law School. Archived from the original on 16 April 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  25. ↑ "Loss Of Control And Diminished Responsibility". Oxbridge Notes. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  26. ↑ Knoll, Pat (14 April 2015). "CED, an Overview of the Law — Criminal Law – Defences: Provocation". WestLaw Next Canada. Thomson Reuters. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  27. ↑ Fine, Sean (25 October 2013). "Supreme Court dismisses 'provoked' defence claim in murder cases". Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 5 June 2018. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  28. ↑ "Provocation as a Defence to Murder" (PDF). National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Government of Australia. 1979. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 February 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  29. ↑ Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18 Murder and manslaughter defined.
  30. ↑ Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 23 and 23A (NSW).
  31. ↑ Wilson v R [1992] HCA 31 , (1992) 174 CLR 313, High Court (Australia).
  32. 1 2 3 Nydam v R [1977] VicRp 50 , [1977] VR 430(17 December 1976), Supreme Court (Vic,Australia).
  33. ↑ Burns v R [2012] HCA 35 , (2012) 246 CLR 334 per French CJ at [19](14 September 2012), High Court (Australia).
  34. ↑ "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code". 27 August 2021.
  35. ↑ "Murder vs. manslaughter". CBC News. 24 February 2012. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
  36. ↑ "Murder vs. Manslaughter". CBC News. 27 February 2012. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  37. ↑ "PENAL CODE (Japan)" (PDF). Retrieved May 4, 2023.
  38. ↑ Rassat, Michèle-Laure (2018-05-23). Droit pénal spécial - Infractions du Code pénal. 8e éd. - Infractions du Code pénal (in French). Editis - Interforum. ISBN   978-2-247-18061-5.
  39. ↑ "Article 221-1 - Code pénal - Légifrance". www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  40. ↑ Hodgson, Jacqueline (2005-11-08). French Criminal Justice: A Comparative Account of the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime in France. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN   978-1-84731-069-9.
  41. ↑ Government, Frrench (2017-06-26). Criminal Law of France. Independently Published. ISBN   978-1-5215-9028-7.
  42. ↑ "Article 221-6 - Code pénal - Légifrance". www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  43. ↑ Bohlander, Michael; Kemp, Gerhard; Webster, Mark (2023-06-15). Public Health Crisis Management and Criminal Liability of Governments: A Comparative Study of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5099-4632-7.
  44. ↑ Elliott, Catherine (May 2001). French Criminal Law. Routledge. ISBN   978-1-135-99307-8.
  45. ↑ Pin, Xavier (2023-10-12). Droit pénal général 2024 15ed (in French). Groupe Lefebvre Dalloz. ISBN   978-2-247-22928-4.
  46. ↑ "Article 222-7 - Code pénal". Légifrance. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  47. ↑ Varela, Lorena (2012). "Strict-Liability como forma de imputación jurídico" (PDF). Indret.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-09-28. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  48. ↑ Amato, Astolfo Di; Fucito, Federica (2020-10-20). Criminal Law in Italy. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN   978-94-035-2444-3.
  49. ↑ "Codice Penale-art. 575". www.gazzettaufficiale.it. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  50. ↑ Ramacci, Fabrizio (2016-11-25). I delitti di omicidio (in Italian). Giappichelli. ISBN   978-88-921-0521-8.
  51. ↑ "Codice Penale-art. 584". www.gazzettaufficiale.it. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  52. ↑ Cadoppi, Alberto (1992). Mens rea (in Italian). Utet.
  53. ↑ "Codice Penale-art. 589". www.gazzettaufficiale.it. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  54. ↑ Heller, Kevin Jon; Dubber, Markus (2010-12-01). The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law. Stanford University Press. ISBN   978-0-8047-7729-2.
  55. ↑ Volonaki, Eleni (2000). ""Apagoge" in Homicide Cases" (PDF). Dike. 3.
  56. ↑ Gagarin, Michael (1981). Drakon and early Athenian homicide law . New York: Yale U.P. ISBN   978-0300026276.
  57. 1 2 Phillips, David D. "Phonos as a Term of Athenian Law: "Homicide" or "Killing," Not "Murder/Manslaughter"" (PDF). The Classical Association of the Middle West and South.
  58. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Brown, Bernard --- "The Emergence Of The Psychical Test Of Guilt In Homicide, 1200-1550" [1959] UTasLawRw 4; (1959) 1(2) University of Tasmania Law Review 231". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
  59. ↑ "Waller, Louis --- "The Tracy Maund Memorial Lecture: Any Reasonable Creature in Being" [1987] MonashULawRw 2; (1987) 13(1) Monash University Law Review 37". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.