Should Blind Rage Affect Cases of Manslaughter?

[WanderingGaze22]

When someone is extremely angry, they resort to baser instincts; they move away from reasoning and compassion. Even if they truly did not intend to end the life of someone, a victim is created and people suffer. Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded. Keep in mind that people like soldiers and police officers are trained to keep some form of a clear head when in a life or death situation. At the same time, certain situations such as tragedy causes influential factors in these situations.

[Pattern-chaser]

At the point where we consider whether someone has broken our laws, everyone is responsible for their actions. If you did it, you did it; you're guilty.

But then we consider what action to take, given your guilt. At this point, we take into account all manner of things: circumstances, environment and context. And we also consider what a hypothetical 'reasonable person' might have done in the same situation. That you were angry when you did what you did is very much part of this consideration. We might decide it excused your actions, or we might not. Judgement is not a simple thing; many things must be weighed together, so that our judgement is as fair as it can be to you, your victims, and the rest of society.

HTH?

[Sculptor1]

When someone is extremely angry, they resort to baser instincts; they move away from reasoning and compassion. Even if they truly did not intend to end the life of someone, a victim is created and people suffer. Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded. Keep in mind that people like soldiers and police officers are trained to keep some form of a clear head when in a life or death situation. At the same time, certain situations such as tragedy causes influential factors in these situations.

Er... I think a person in "blind rage" who kills someone is usually called murder.
So you are not asking the right question.

And no - cops and vets should not get away with murder.
If they are having problems they should seek anger management classes.

[AverageBozo]

My understanding is that state of mind goes to charging a defendant with manslaughter or murder. Blind rage without prior planning might lead to first degree voluntary manslaughter, for example.

As mentioned above, state of mind is also important in the sentencing portion of a trial.

[stevie]

Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded.

Actually in juristic practice it is taken into consideration whether an offender has been driven by spontaneous affects exclusively or whether she/he has meditated the offence beforehand and/or what motifs may have been involved. So you seem to be asking whether this juristic practice is right or wrong. I am not in a position to decide.

[Leontiskos]

When someone is extremely angry, they resort to baser instincts; they move away from reasoning and compassion. Even if they truly did not intend to end the life of someone, a victim is created and people suffer. Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded. Keep in mind that people like soldiers and police officers are trained to keep some form of a clear head when in a life or death situation. At the same time, certain situations such as tragedy causes influential factors in these situations.

Yes, because volition bears on guilt. Just as it matters whether someone has broken the law on purpose or by accident, so too it matters whether they have broken the law while in full possession of their faculties or while they had less control of themselves. The less volition there is, the less guilt there is, although it is important to remember that someone can at times be responsible for their lack of volition (such as the man who decides to get drunk).

Then there are also cases where a dangerous person consistently cannot control themselves, such as a violent madman. In that case they could be incarcerated for their own safety and that of the community, rather than because they are per se guilty of some crime.

[mystery]

When someone is extremely angry, they resort to baser instincts; they move away from reasoning and compassion. Even if they truly did not intend to end the life of someone, a victim is created and people suffer. Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded. Keep in mind that people like soldiers and police officers are trained to keep some form of a clear head when in a life or death situation. At the same time, certain situations such as tragedy causes influential factors in these situations.

No, It has to do with intent. I suggest a fictitious example:
--
As a man entered entered his house today he heard his daughter scream. When he found her she was being raped by a man he has never seen before and she also had been beaten. In a rage, the father killed him instantly and dumped him aside as he proceeded to help and take care of the girl.
--

In the story, I tell that I believe that the man is guilty of murder or first-degree manslaughter. If I am on a jury for this case I would probably find him not guilty unless additional details are explained that would affect the situation.

If the guy got away and the father hunted him down later I would still find not guilty even though being certain of the crime.

[LuckyR]

When someone is extremely angry, they resort to baser instincts; they move away from reasoning and compassion. Even if they truly did not intend to end the life of someone, a victim is created and people suffer. Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded. Keep in mind that people like soldiers and police officers are trained to keep some form of a clear head when in a life or death situation. At the same time, certain situations such as tragedy causes influential factors in these situations.

No, It has to do with intent. I suggest a fictitious example:
--
As a man entered entered his house today he heard his daughter scream. When he found her she was being raped by a man he has never seen before and she also had been beaten. In a rage, the father killed him instantly and dumped him aside as he proceeded to help and take care of the girl.
--

In the story, I tell that I believe that the man is guilty of murder or first-degree manslaughter. If I am on a jury for this case I would probably find him not guilty unless additional details are explained that would affect the situation.

If the guy got away and the father hunted him down later I would still find not guilty even though being certain of the crime.

Which brings us to the Vengeance thread.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the story, I tell that I believe that the man is guilty of murder or first-degree manslaughter. If I am on a jury for this case I would probably find him not guilty unless additional details are explained that would affect the situation.

This illustrates something I consider to be a significant shortcoming in the way our courts dispense justice. The man in the example is clearly guilty of the crime. But, if a jury considers that he should not be punished as the law requires, they must find him not guilty - which is quite obviously untrue - instead of being able to conclude that he is guilty, but that no punishment is necessary or appropriate, given all the circumstances leading up to the crime.

[Gee]

When someone is extremely angry, they resort to baser instincts; they move away from reasoning and compassion. Even if they truly did not intend to end the life of someone, a victim is created and people suffer. Should the fact that someone was in a stressed and flight or fight state of mind be taken into consideration when being judged or should they be disregarded. Keep in mind that people like soldiers and police officers are trained to keep some form of a clear head when in a life or death situation. At the same time, certain situations such as tragedy causes influential factors in these situations.

No, It has to do with intent.

I studied a little law and do believe you are correct. Intent would determine how the person was charged for the death, but it would not necessarily be an intent to murder that would be considered -- any intentional act that caused the death would be considered. For example: You are approaching a man standing on a bridge and see that he has lost his footing and is about to fall, so you reach out to help him, but accidently bump him and make him fall.

You intentionally reached out to him -- intent is established. You are guilty of causing his death. Then motivation and past experiences with the man would be considered to determine if it was murder or manslaughter, or to determine if your intent was to kill. If you, yourself, were falling off the bridge and smacked him on the way past and knocked him down, that would not be considered intent and that would be an accident.

I suggest a fictitious example:
--
As a man entered entered his house today he heard his daughter scream. When he found her she was being raped by a man he has never seen before and she also had been beaten. In a rage, the father killed him instantly and dumped him aside as he proceeded to help and take care of the girl.
--

In the story, I tell that I believe that the man is guilty of murder or first-degree manslaughter. If I am on a jury for this case I would probably find him not guilty unless additional details are explained that would affect the situation.

If the guy got away and the father hunted him down later I would still find not guilty even though being certain of the crime.

In this case, he would certainly be charged with murder, but he would also qualify for the defense of "self defense" because children, a spouse, and home all fall under the protection of "self" for self defense.

Gee