Manslaughter

The crime of manslaughter has evolved over the centuries from a mitigation of murder to crimes committed under levels of criminal culpability. The offense of manslaughter in some states can be defined as the reckless or criminal negligent killing of a human being. Recklessness involves the conscious disregard of gross risks of harm that law abiding or reasonable people will attempt to avoid. Criminal negligence involves the unconscious creation of a risk of harm that is a gross deviation from the conduct of a reasonable person. It is sometimes difficult to determine if a person committed a reckless or a negligent killing.

Brief Historical Background

The criminal law is intended to protect the public good and to deter crime by imposing punishment for wrongdoing. During the Middle Ages, English customs and mores that were based upon JudeoChristian teachings made it wrong to kill another person. These killings could be avenged by the victim's family, and blood feuds ensued when families disputed the culpability owed to one family by another. From the year 1066, when William I became the first King of England and for several centuries thereafter, the English crown formalized the law by making individual wrongs a crime against the crown. Thus, it came to be the aggrieved party and punishments were to be meted out in the name of the king. Most offenses, including homicide, were deemed felony offenses that were punishable by death. Because someone was killed, however, did not mean in a technical sense [Page 688]that a crime was committed. Two categories of killing were distinguishable up through the 16th century, criminal homicide (or murder) and justified homicide. Murder was defined as the unlawful taking of another person's life without justification. But one would not be punished by law if the killing occurred in self-defense.

By the 17th century, the criminal law was sufficiently developed that criminal homicides were distinguished into the categories of murder and manslaughter. During this time period, use of the death penalty began to be placed under intense scrutiny. In response, common laws were created to distinguish felonies by taking into consideration the mental state (mens rea) of the accused. Murder, denoted as the killing of a human being with malice, was mitigated to a charge of manslaughter if the act could be demonstrated to have occurred without malice. Rather, the loss of life occurred because the accused acted from the heat of passion or provocation by the victim. This distinction between murder and manslaughter is basic to the present day.

Common Law and Heat of Passion Killings

Unlawful killings at common law were categorized as murder unless the defendant could show that the offense was committed under the heat of passion and was provoked by the victim. But provocation, it was held, had to be so intense that the offender could not control his or her behavior and acted in response to such provocation. In addition, the killing had to occur while the offender's passions were aroused. If a reasonable amount of time were to transpire to allow the perpetrator to become calm, the offense would not be mitigated and the offender would be tried in criminal court for murder and, if found guilty, sentenced to death. If tried and convicted of manslaughter, the sentence was for one year of imprisonment and with the thumb of the perpetrator branded as a signal to the public that punishment had been meted out. In the latter instance, provocation had to be proven and be directly tied to the event at the time the killing took place.

...