Should involuntary manslaughter be a civil or criminal matter?


White_Unifier
#1
Woman shoots boyfriend dead in YouTube stunt gone wrong - World - CBC News

Unlike murder which is intentional, manslaughter is strictly unintentional.

Once it's determined that there is not enough evidence to prove murder and there is reason to believe that the killing is accidental, I think there are a few things to consider.

Firstly, from a purely economic standpoint, what is the benefit to the economy and to society of imprisoning a person who unintentionally killed someone and probably won't do it again?

Secondly, even if it should be removed from the criminal code, this still would not stop the relatives of the victim to sue for damages to them. And how is the perpetrator to pay if he's in jail? I honestly don't see how criminalizing the unintentional benefits anyone?

That said, I am open to allowing capital punishment for murder though due to the intent behind it.
 
MHz
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
Both, a criminal charge and then a wrongful death suit in civil court.
 
Mowich
#3
It is a crime to kill someone whether or not it was intentional therefore it is a criminal matter. IMHO
 
White_Unifier
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

It is a crime to kill someone whether or not it was intentional therefore it is a criminal matter. IMHO

I know it is. I was asking whether it ought to be because I don't see any benefit to that.

From the standpoint of public safety, if it was unintentional, he likely won't do it again anyway, so what does prison accomplish there.

From the standpoint of deterrence, the cost of a civil suit will probably be enough of a deterrence against acting foolishly anyway. I don't see how criminal charges would add much to that.

From the standpoint of compensation, how does a prisoner earn enough to pay back after a civil suit?

So on what front does making unintentional killing a criminal offence benefit anyone?
 
Mowich
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I know it is. I was asking whether it ought to be because I don't see any benefit to that.

From the standpoint of public safety, if it was unintentional, he likely won't do it again anyway, so what does prison accomplish there.

From the standpoint of deterrence, the cost of a civil suit will probably be enough of a deterrence against acting foolishly anyway. I don't see how criminal charges would add much to that.

From the standpoint of compensation, how does a prisoner earn enough to pay back after a civil suit?

So on what front does making unintentional killing a criminal offence benefit anyone?

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. It should remain a criminal matter with some form of punishment. It is not the punishment that matters so much as to send a message to people, who obviously don't know any better, that it is a crime to kill someone. So, fps, think before you act.

The problem with leaving it in civil court is the probability of the alleged assailant - male or female - being insolvent.
 
White_Unifier
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. It should remain a criminal matter with some form of punishment. It is not the punishment that matters so much as to send a message to people, who obviously don't know any better, that it is a crime to kill someone. So, fps, think before you act.

The problem with leaving it in civil court is the probability of the alleged assailant - male or female - being insolvent.

Or what about this. It's a criminal offence, but the punishment is the payment of blood money to the family of the victims with the judge reserving the power to override insolvency. In other words, even if the person can't pay it now, he will need to pay it once he can pay it, whenever in his life that may be.

If the perpetrator has no family, then he pays the blood money to the state, again with the judge having the power to override insolvency in this matter.
 
Mowich
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Or what about this. It's a criminal offence, but the punishment is the payment of blood money to the family of the victims with the judge reserving the power to override insolvency. In other words, even if the person can't pay it now, he will need to pay it once he can pay it, whenever in his life that may be.

If the perpetrator has no family, then he pays the blood money to the state, again with the judge having the power to override insolvency in this matter.

Blood money, eh. Look, the type of people committing these types of crimes will never ever be able to pay damages.
 
taxslave
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Woman shoots boyfriend dead in YouTube stunt gone wrong - World - CBC News

Unlike murder which is intentional, manslaughter is strictly unintentional.

Once it's determined that there is not enough evidence to prove murder and there is reason to believe that the killing is accidental, I think there are a few things to consider.

Firstly, from a purely economic standpoint, what is the benefit to the economy and to society of imprisoning a person who unintentionally killed someone and probably won't do it again?

Secondly, even if it should be removed from the criminal code, this still would not stop the relatives of the victim to sue for damages to them. And how is the perpetrator to pay if he's in jail? I honestly don't see how criminalizing the unintentional benefits anyone?

That said, I am open to allowing capital punishment for murder though due to the intent behind it.

It would depend on the circumstances. A drunk driver that kills someone should be charged with murder. Something like the stunt in the OPP where the dead person is a willing participant , no.
 
MHz
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I know it is. I was asking whether it ought to be because I don't see any benefit to that.

From the standpoint of public safety, if it was unintentional, he likely won't do it again anyway, so what does prison accomplish there.

From the standpoint of deterrence, the cost of a civil suit will probably be enough of a deterrence against acting foolishly anyway. I don't see how criminal charges would add much to that.

From the standpoint of compensation, how does a prisoner earn enough to pay back after a civil suit?

So on what front does making unintentional killing a criminal offence benefit anyone?

Guilty to a criminal charge pretty much assures a civil case will be won, the only issue is the compensation.

Chance's brother Levi should be naming a whole bunch of people/companies in a civil lawsuit. The criminal investigation might still take another year but that information should be made available to Levi. That being said no Lawyer will touch it as one of the named persons would be Justice John Little for his action in the lawsuit Chance had going. The Law Society of Alberta would also be named. Levi is in Federal Prison so he should be looking at some fellow inmates to help him file the case and reward them at Lawyers rates,