The Brief Analysis of Rules in the Law of Murder Free Essay Example

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Analytical Examination on the Law of Homicide

In the context of the law, murder is defined as the intentional or malicious killing of a human being. The defendants Geiger and Stamp did not intentionally kill anyone, yet they are being classified at the same level as Snowden, who was in fact a cold-blooded murderer. The law of murder included the intentional killing, grievous bodily harm, extreme recklessness, and felony murder. Many experts would argue that the definition of murder is in fact too vast and illogical.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ The Brief Analysis of Rules in the Law of Murder ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

For instance, some believe that the felony murder rule is unfair, and that we should not label people as murderers if they have not directly killed anyone. However, the law of murder is logical in its inclusion of a variety of possible circumstances because the defendant should be responsible for all occurrences during the perilous situation that they created.

In the case of People v. Geiger, the defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder with proof of malice.

The defendant and his wife had had a violent encounter in which he struck her about the face several times, resulting in her falling and bumping her head, causing her death. It would be easy for Geiger to argue that he did not mean to kill her and it was merely an accident and get away with murder if it wasn’t for the all-encompassing law of murder. The court found that the defendant clearly showed malicious intent to cause harm to the victim and stated that, “It is not necessary in all cases that one held for murder must have intended to take the life of the person he slays by his wrongful act.

” This is the court’s way of making sure that the defendant does not get away with murder even they claim it is an ‘accident’. In rare cases, the killing of another may actually be an accident, but the court and the jury cannot know for sure what the defendant was thinking, they can only assume from the facts. This is why the law of murder must include all possibilities in which they can hold a defendant for murder. Although the defendant did not premeditate the murder, he certainly was the cause of his wife’s death and should be held accountable for his actions and any death, unintentional or not, that occurs as a result of his actions.

The felony-murder rule is similar to the court’s conclusion in People v. Geiger because it hold felons liable for any incidents that occur whilst committing a felony. In People v. Stamp, the defendant is charged with felony-murder when the owner of the establishment died 15-20 minutes after the robbery due to a heart condition. The defendant argues that he cannot be held responsible on account of ‘the unforeseeability of Honeyman’s death’. This is entirely incorrect according to the law. The court stated, “As long as the homicide is the direct causal result of the robbery the felony-murder rule applies whether the death was the natural and probable consequence of the robbery.” Meaning that it does not matter if the accused does not directly or intentionally kill a person, as long as there is a death resulting from the felony, then the defendant is found guilty of murder. This goes back again to holding the defendant, or felon, accountable for any death they may have cause, direct or otherwise. It is important that the law includes every possibility, such as an unforeseeable death during a felony, because then no one would be blamed for the death clearly caused by another. Although, Stamp did not actually commit the same actus reus of murder as Geiger did, felons need to be penalized for anything that may happen as a result of the dangerous situation that they caused. The felony-murder rule is entirely reasonable in that it forces the defendant to be accused of not only a felony but also the killing of another human being.

The law of murder is most logical and appropriate in the intentional and premeditated killing of a human being. It is defined as, “any kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing”. In the case of People v. Snowden, the defendant was in an argument with the victim who was later found to be ‘viciously and sadistically cut and mutilated’. In this case it is clear that the defendant intentionally killed the victim, it was only a question of premeditation. The court concluded that, “the deliberate purpose to kill and the killing may follow each other as rapidly as successive impulses or thoughts of the mind”. This is the court’s way of saying that in order to kill, a person must have the mens rea of a crime along with the actus reus in order to be convicted of intentional and premeditated murder. Yet another example of the law including every possible circumstance in which to charge someone with the offense of murder.

The law of murder is set to make sure that every murderer, whether felon or merely reckless individual, is held liable for any death they have caused. It is important that the law of murder holds felons accountable for any deaths that occur in the dangerous situation in which they created, otherwise Stamp would not have been held responsible for the death of Honeyman which was directly caused by Stamps felony. The law of murder is fair to accuse Geiger of murder even if he unintentionally killed his wife because he clearly performed the actus reus needed and was in the mindset to harm his wife. It is then fair for the law to hold Snowden responsible for his intentional and malicious killing of Mrs. Dean. The law of murder is completely fair and logical in its incorporation of every possible situation in which a defendant should be held liable for any and all deaths caused, direct or otherwise.