Talk:Murder in English law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

[edit] Discussion of US Law inappropriate to this article

This is an article on UK law, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has no place in this article. Even if it did, a lengthy quotation of the text of an act of marginal relevance to the overall topic is inappropriate -- it could be perceived as giving undue weight to an issue which has little political relevance in the EU. Prior to deleting it from this article, I added the text to the article on the act itself, which lacked it for some inexplicable reason. I am re-deleting boldly. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have crystalised the point of disagreement. All laws benefit from the ideas adopted in other jurisdictions. It is common in cases of potential controversy that both academic and practitioner lawyers expressly refer to other laws as I did here. In this instance, it is highly material to consider the U.S. approach which is an interesting application of transferred malice. I will draft a short commentary that refers readers to the text of the statute which I hope you will respect. I can assure you that the issue is of considerable interest within the EU and, as you can see from the case which I cited, the subject of litigation. David91 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If there are actual proposals to change UK law similarly to the US law, a discussion of those proposals would be most informative -- to me at least. Given that the US retains the Felony murder rule and seems more comfortable with transferred intent than the UK (at least if I may judge by the AG's characterization of them as "outdated fictions"), would such a law take different form in the UK? The fact that abortion is a hot-button issue in the US delayed passage of such a measure for many years and made it controversial. How does the situation in the UK compare? Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion the issue in two different contexts. At a policy level in the UK, the Law Commission has been engaging in extensive consultation as to whether codification of the law of homicide is practical, so all aspects of the law of murder have been discussed in the light of the current cultural contexts. As I have indicated in the compromise wording tendered on the article page, the U.S. approach is considered interesting but unlikely to be adopted. But, within the EU, there is major debate as to the scope of the framework of human rights and whether it should offer protection to the uterine child. After all, as but one example, it is legitimate to ask what the right to life is worth if it is denied to a uterine child? Although obtaining a value free answer to such questions is difficult. The questions are becoming for pointed of late because some of the EU Member States are shifting to the right, e.g. in Poland, and there is concern that the broad framework of protections is being undermined or distorted. You should understand that, within the EU, we routinely consider each others laws and the policies that underpin then because, in the longer term, we are moving towards some degree of harmonisation.
Same thing in the U.S. State legislatures copy from one another -- the suspicion that they copy only one another's mistakes is at least partly waggish. To be honest, I mistook the citation without discussion of the law as an instance of US-POV pushing. I hope my edits were helpful and welcome, and I believe I am correct that the law enshrines a legal fiction, rather than granding personhood status to the foetus. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I always value comments on what I write. I am old and frequently miss things because I "don't see so good no more". So, of course, I have valued your concerns. As to the wording of the Act, we have to refer back to "(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." So the death of the child is charged as a separate offence and punished under 2C. Hence, I have adjusted the wording to show us both correct. I hope that works for you. David91 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
"Nay, my lord, when you are a dotard, you will die." -- J.R.R. Tolkien Seriously, the separate offense rule applies to both 2A and 2C. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I just shows how pathetic my ability to communicate has become because I thought was was what I said. Yes, we agree. Do you want me to redraft the dicsussion for transferred mailice? David91 05:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Check my edit. See what you think. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War - Actus Reus vs. Mens Rea

There seems to be an editing war as to which is the more appropriate term - actus reus or mens rea. Should we freeze the article?Erik-the-red (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)