Jump to content

Talk:Murder/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Edit

I removed a link to the article about George Bush from the "see also" section. Funny, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--70.157.7.2 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted ENTIRE reference to casualties of Iraqis in War, that has no business being placed in demographics of murder. Geez. 209.115.232.65 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Above deletion was this edit. I'm not sure I concur. Seems to me that most of the day to day killings going on there are in fact murder, so should they be reflected in a demographics discussion. Perhaps the references need to be more complete, facts checked etc, but the basic rationale for inclusion seems sound.LeadSongDog 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Finland

   On the other hand, causing death by jumping on
   a person's chest and head and firing over 10 times
   upon a person's torso have been considered to fulfill the standard.

Is this a joke, or an actual case ? If it's the latter, I suppose we need a source.
FiP Как вы думаете? 10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Exclamation! Points!

Is! There! A! Reason! For! All! of! These!? -- this unsigned comment added by User:81.132.156.119 at 01:10, 25 September 2006

That version of the page was vandalism. It has been reverted. -- Cameron Dewe 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Average Sentence?

What is the average or median sentence for murder in the US and time served?

Expanding the U.S. section

State-by state information is needed, plus more info on different degrees of murder. If it's too cumbersome to add state-by-state information within this page (which'd make sense, given the complexity of these laws and the amount of variance), a new page should be created. Also, "Third-degree murder" redirects here, but there's no information on it, nor is there any on the "Felony murder" page. Expanding wikipedia's coverage to a point where it is sufficient may take time, but will be worthwhile. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is already too long and mixes types of information in an unsatisfactory way. If it is proposed further to expand the information, country specialists should follow the example of the U.K. and produce a geographically limited page for their own jurisdiction. David91 06:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good call. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps separate articles about Murder in Juridiction are warranted. I know there are already categories for some countries but companion articles that discuss the law in each juridiction and relevant cases of murder might be useful. I also think the article about Murder in English law could be a separate article to one about Murder in England because the former deals with the development of the concept of Murder that many jurisdictions that are based on English common law use. -- Cameron Dewe 10:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Infanticide

Also, in some European countries, it is not murder if a mother kills her child, provided that the child is less than 356 days old. AND - The mother has been found to have soem disturbance of mind resulting from the effects of childbirth. Thus the element of mental disturbance (e.g. post-partum depression, or psychoses) is essential, although in practice such evidence can be minimal, if non-existant. JN

Perhaps you would like to tell us which European country this is. I'd like to know. -- Derek Ross

This makes it sound like the mother gets off scot free:

In many countries — including Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia — infanticide laws allow women to kill their child in the first year of his or her life.

A mother is certainly not ALLOWED to kill her child in the UK, simply because it is aged less than one year! However she is treated more leniently if it can be proven she has disturbance of mind ...........JN

I know for a fact in the UK and Australia that's not the case -- the mother might be found guilty of a lesser crime than murder, with lesser penalties, but she'd still be convicted of SOMETHING. -- An.

At least that is more accurate ....JN

The anon above is correct this is simply incorrect for the UK and Australia, I don't know about other countries, so i've moved the para to here.

In many countries — including Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia — infanticide laws allow women to kill their child in the first year of his or her life. Some allow the mother to kill all her children, providing that one child hasn't yet celebrated a first birthday. The killer need then only show that the "balance of her mind was disturbed" by childbirth and having a baby in the house.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel082801.shtml This is from there - it seems that this part is correct

In many nations, including Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Australia, there is an infanticide clause that exempts mothers who kill a child under the age of 1 from being charged with murder. Instead, these laws typically provide that the maximum charge that can be levelled is manslaughter.
This is simply BAD inaccurate reporting. Mintguy

I don't think so Mr.Mintguy...... This is actually the most accurate thing I have read on the whole page!!!! JN

Well then clarify - there is a relevant exception for mothers, that is clear from both articles i quoted (the other is from bbc - see other talk page).

There is no exception for mothers in the UK. The BBC is wrong or, more likely, over-simplifying reported cases. Post-natal depression (as we call it) may be a mitigating factor in sentencing (see R v Isaac [1998]) or may form the basis for a defence of provocation (see R v Smith [2000]). The relevant extract in R v Smith is: "A woman suffering from post-natal depression may kill on trivial provocation or none at all. If the provocation is insufficient to cause a person of ordinary self-control to act as she did, then her actions are attributable to her depressive illness and not to the provocation.". I'll amend the page. Bob 22:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


This not should be allowed to happen in any country because it is wrong.

NPOV

Murder#United_Kingdom:

Infanticide - Under s1 Infanticide Act 1938, the intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance represents an early form of diminished responsibility defence and needs reform to bring it into line with modern medical understanding, and

No source. Looks like somebody's opinion to me. 82.27.48.57 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The source identified would be s1 Infanticide Act 1938. Citation should be clarified and wikified.LeadSongDog 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

Is killing done by a terrorist murder? A couple of example questions.

  1. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo shot a number of people in the area of Washington DC. At the time and since, their actions have been referred to "terrorizing the city". Are they murderers, terrorists or both?
  2. Is a suicide bomber that kills people other than himself a murderer?

The news broadcasts these days seem to rarely use the word "murder" and its derivates in referring to a wide variety of acts, preferring to use "kill" or even the passive voice "xxx people were killed as a result of ...."

Guidance please OneVoice 04:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Yes" to both Y/N questions, and "both" to the other. It's important not to confuse journalism with law.

It's also worth noting that the press did get it right to a certain extent in mentioning terrorization: in one of the jurisdictions, that is an aggravating circumstance, and sufficient to put the death penalty on the table.

Should discuss "necessity" in this context. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. Application of the concept of 'necessity' to the DC sniper case is a lunatic-fringe political theory. End of discussion.

Felony murder statutes

I have heard two different versions of the concept:

  1. There is no felony murder without a death that would be a murder by someone, even in the absence of the shared felony. That is, working in concert to commit the felony simply makes the murder "contagious" to all the conspirators.
  2. "If you run down a drunk during the getaway, that's a murder." That has at several interpretations, corresponding to these specific examples:
    1. You don't even have a gun, but pretend to; the cop in the lobby follows you out, draws his gun and yells "Stop, Police!" You get flustered and turn toward him without raising your hands; he shoots, killing a bystander; you faint dead away. Are you liable for felony murder of the bystander?
      1. I would believe yes. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
      2. No felony murder here. What's the predicate felony? Pretending to have a gun? Maybe depraved heart murder.
    2. Does it make a difference if it was one of your partners the cop kills?
      1. I would not think so. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
      2. Some states will cut off felony murder if killing is justified, i.e. the cop has justification defense for shooting confederate. Might be depraved heart murder if confederates incited the shootout.
    3. Nobody gets shot, and the getaway car is proceeding at the normal pace of traffic, blending in with the citizenry; as soon as the drunk staggers into sight from behind the truck parked in the middle of the block, you slam on the brakes, but he's too close and you run him over.
    4. Felony murder ends as soon as the criminals are in a place of relative safety. If the "chase" is considered over then no FM.
      1. If there's a quick response to the accident, AND a timely report of the robbery over the radio, AND the cops put 2+2 together and perform a search of the vehicle (incidental to the accident investigation) this would be a likely scenario for a FM prosecution to occur. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
      2. This shouldn't have anything to do with it.
    5. Same situation, but the drunk dies bcz you're driving fast enought that it would be negligent homicide, but, in the absence of the robbery, it would not be murder (no "depraved indifference to human life").
    6. Reckless driving + conscious awareness of the risk + depraved indifference to human life = depraved heart murder
      1. Same as previous. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Which of these are felony murders, if any? --Jerzy(t) 23:12, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Good question. And what about the situation where an offender commits a crime that results in the offender himself being killed, say in a hostage situation. Has the offender committed felony murder, of himself, because someone else killed him? He, of course, probably would not be charged with the crime, so it is unlikely to be tested in Court, but would it be counted as a felony murder, suicide or both? -- Cameron Dewe 10:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Findlaw speaks to this in their dictionary definitions of murder. (caution- US POV implicit to Findlaw)LeadSongDog 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The United States

I've removed the following, which would be good info in an article on American attitudes toward crime:

Despite the large amount of attention that the media in the United States devote to murder trials, fewer people are murdered each year in the United States than die from suicide, from motor vehicle injuries, or from AIDS.

In this article, it's just floating loose, and thus only a distraction.

I believe in the UK the first paragraph is not correct. I believe that to prove murder you do not have to prove "intention to murder" but that, for example, to kill whilst acting intending to cause GBH (when the death was a foreseeable risk) is murder. I believe it is well established for example that where someone is coshed but dies because of a thin skull this is murder. However, I am not basing this on being a legal expert, just on the way the judge explained it to us when I did jury service recently--(talk)BozMo 15:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The second sentence under U.S. Punishment for Murder appears incorrectly written. Currently, it states, "However, due to overcrowding of the American prison system ... murderers serve only 7 years of real time." Shouldn't it read, "an average of 7 years"? The way it's written now make it seem that all murderers, as opposed to the average murderer, serve 7 years, which is clearly not factual. Does anyone have a citation that would confirm that 7 years is the average? - Walkiped 02:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The section on U.S. murder is completely erroneous. Voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder are not the same. Also third degree murder and involuntary manslaughter are not the same. Whoever wrote this would not pass first year criminal law.


---

I deleted the following sentence:

"If a person tried to kill another but failed he or she is guilty of attempted murder."

This statement is intuitively correct but not legally precise. ---Axios023 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Germany

The article contains a section about Germany. I am not sure if the following information should be included:

- number of murders/manslaugther/whatever-it-is-called per year: ~1000 - number of murders: ~400 - percentage of murder-cases, where the murderer is convicted: 94-95%

lebenslang (lifelong)

Lifelong actually is 30 years, if I´m not totally mistaken. 81.201.224.13 12:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's actually 25 years. There is also not metioned that there is the oppotunity of a preventive detention* (Sicherheitverwahrung) which can last till the death of the prisoner.


  • This is a form of detention intended to protect the general public from dangerous individuals and habitual offenders

Homicide vs. Murder

I don't know if this issue only applies to the Canadian numbers but the rates quoted are "homicide rates", which includes crimes called "murder" as well as "manslaughter", etc. What crimes are included is mentioned in the article. Also, the source should be "Statistics Canada", rather than the 2001 Census, which uses the term "homicide" rather than murder. Should this content appear in homicide instead? --Big_Iron 10:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Canadian reference is now there, the problem with only having murder rates is that it appears many countries quote homicide rather than murder in their statistics. In most cases I guess the homicide rate is only slightly higher than the murder rate? 155.198.63.112 10:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am on a wiki-campaign to replace "murder" with "homicide" in articles. Murder, as this article describes, is a very specific kind of homicide, and depends on the killer's intent and other factors. Because a killing isn't technically a "murder" until somebody is convicted of a "murder", the more appropriate term to use is homicide. I'm not sure if there are statistics out there that only measure the "murder rate", i think they mean 'homicide rate' but use 'murder' in common parlance. And if they did publish a murder rate, it would certainly be much much lower than the homicide rate, because you wouldn't be counting manslaughter and unsolved killings.
So in this article, I'm not sure how I can fix the "murder demographics" section because it's actually talking about homicide demographics. does it even belong in this article? -Taco325i 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The best way to fix the problem is to not fix it because the problem is with your understanding, not the article. First understand what the crime statistics are measuring. When Police record Murders in their statistics theu generally mean: "These are the crimes that, with the evidence we have, believes us to think a Murder has been committed and we are going to charge an offender on that basis." Police may not know who committed a murder but they will generally have enough evidence to say that the killing involved enough intent to be a murder. Not every murderer is convicted of murder, many of them kill themselves, others get away. If you are looking for statistics about "murder convictions" you need to look elsewhere. It is also a matter of definitions about what Murder and Homicide are. For its own credibility, Wikipedia should be reporting what the researchers are saying, not setting the definitions of what is to be said by and about the research, otherwise people won't believe Wikipedia. -- Cameron Dewe 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Law enforcement does not charge a crime unless they have a culprit. Looking at a slain victim alone does not reveal whether the killer was a person who had specifically intended to kill, or flipped out and killed, or accidentally killed. In all three instances, it would be considered as a homicide. In only one instance, however would it be considered a murder. Scholars would tell you that most homicides are not murders. Murders are rare. To use "murder" to describe a general killing is, of course, a part of everyday language -- but it is unencyclopedic. Homicide is the appropriate term. -Taco325i 02:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Taco325i - where is this misconception you have that homicide is murder stated in the article? Reread the article first. I think you miss the mark, when you say that it is only murder upon conviction. Surely it is murder when that criminal act happened. Securing a conviction for murder may be problematic in some cases, which is why there are Courts and standards of evidence being beyond reasonable doubt. But what happens when the innocent man is convicted on fabricated evidence, or biased evidence, did the murder not happen because the police did a bad, or unethical, job and catch the wrong man? I think many people will still say the murder did happen, but someone got away with it.
I do agree that most homicides are not murders, however the terms are not synonymous. This article discusses the crime of murder, which is an intentional homicide and a small subset of all homicides. I think the article is now quite clear that an unjustified intentional killing is murder. Applying the term generally to killings is clearly not the intent (any more, if it ever was). I am not so sure about what term is used under United States law but in Britian, Australia and New Zealand - which are jurisdictions I am more familiar with - the term homicide is often applied to the police investigation, when they know very little about the death, while the terms murder, manslaughter, or causing death are applied to the relevant crime(s) or act that such a homicide investigation might uncover. That evidence might concern the slain victim and surrounding forensic evidence and might, or might not, include the killer's explanations. In some cases, the forensic evidence alone will be enought to indicate a murder more likely occurred than some other crime. Police will then form a view that a particular homicide meets the criteria for murder, and most jurisdictions count it a murder if their police think it is murder. Only then might police consider their suspect offenders and apprehend and charge, prosecute - if they can - and if the case is strong enough a Court will convict an alleged offender. However, I have observed that in many murder cases the murderer is also dead, either at their own hand or in the process of being apprehended. If police used your criteria of arrest and charge for murder to gather statistics about murders, and at one time in New Zealand the Police did use that criteria and were criticised for it, they would seriously undercount the numbers of murders that happen as all murder-suicides, and many other murders, would be ignored.
I also disagree with your analysis about only one of "specifically intended to kill, or flipped out and killed, or accidentally killed" being murder. Which one do you mean? All three might or might not be murder depending on the circumstances. For example: A policeman might intentionally kill an armed man threatening the life of a hostage - that is not murder because the killing is justified by saving the hostage's life; a person who flipped out and killed may or may not be guilty of murder, depending on whether they were judged insane or not - and in any case it might still be murder, only the defence for the crime is insanity, the crime still happened; while a robber who accidentally kills their intended victim could still be guilty of murder if they acted recklessly or used too much force. Things are far more complex than you seem to understand and being encyclopaedic requires that the complexities and fine detail be explained correctly. Being on a crusade to make all murder equate to homicide oversimplifies things too much - I think you have poorly explained why you hold this view and I think you are wrong, because that is not the view that most of the lawyers appear to hold and Wikipedia should reflect the views most commonly held by the experts in the field, not your own (personal) opinion - which would count as original research. -- Cameron Dewe 11:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the blue map show the homicide rate or the murder rate? This article says murder, but murder rate says homicide. Emperor001 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed the following section:

U.S. Punishment for Murder
The typical punishment for murder in the U.S. is a 20 years to life sentence. However, due to overcrowding of the American prison system caused by the War On Drugs, murderers serve only 7 years of real time.

The phrase "caused by the War On Drugs" is irredeemably POV and should not be re-inserted. The rest should be re-inserted if corroborating data can be cited. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 23:13, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

UK

In the UK, there is now an offence distinct from manslaughter called 'causing death by dangerous driving'. I would be pleased for an explanation of why this distinct offence came into being.

This offence came into being in the 1920's because juries would not convict drivers of manslaughter.

We had the same situation in the United States, so a separate type of manslaughter had to be created. The American crime is "vehicular manslaughter." The defendant is guilty if he was either driving with gross negligence or was committing an unlawful act (while driving), and as a result caused the death of a person with his vehicle. Vehicular manslaughter includes a variety of forms of driving drunk, reckless driving (including speeding), and car insurance fraud (although the circumstances in some cases can occasionally justify a murder charge). --Coolcaesar 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Um.... I'm pretty sure there are three criminal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. Scots and Northern Irish murder, anyone? 62.56.63.130 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

this is too POV against Murder, the other side should be presented

For instance, in countries where the government is not legitimately elected, perhaps what is legally murder in those countries, may not be moral murder and have many non-legal (in that country) justifications. For example, someone stooping to perform tax collection for Saddam Hussein and who is threatening to put an alleged offender into his unjust legal system, may be justified in commiting legal murder to escape or discourage other tax collectors. Such "legal" murder could be argued to not be moral murder.--Silverback 22:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or just, you know, the opinons of people that think that murder is a wholesome hobby for the whole family. It'd be no worse than the stupid "POV" debates on the paedophilia pages.

Moral Murder

It seems to me that Murder (moral) should be a separate article. As Silverback points out, moral and legal notions of murder do not always coincide. So, why try to force them into the same article? There is no need to convolute an article on the legal definition of murder with discussions of abortion, the death penalty, the FDA, etc. On the other hand, an article about moral notions of murder is perfectly legitimate, and can very easily expand into a detailed article in its own right. Michael Ward 06:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is more informative to compare and contrast them. Too many people confuse the two, or think the ideal would be for them to coincide.--Silverback 08:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Certainly a contrast to the legal definition would be useful in an article on Murder (moral). Such a discussion does not seem particularly helpful to an understanding of the legal concept however. Though, a pointer to Murder (moral) at the top of the page would be helpful. The recent additions, on whether the FDA commits murder by regulating drugs or whether the death penalty or abortion are murder, seem to me something of an article hijacking. Though a perfectly valid subect for an article in their own right, they have little to do with the original subject of this article, a legal concept. In fact, the only connection is that they are not examples of legal murder. This is highlighted by the fact that these additions are now the lead paragraph; they were unable to fit naturally within the pre-existing structure. Does anybody else have thoughts on this? Michael Ward 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But really, moral murder is only a subjective concept. Different groups and people have different views on what exactly constitutes murder. You'd have to be extremely careful with what you write, and present the opposing side as well. If you feel you must split it off, I think you need a better title than Moral murder, because it isn't actually murder of the morals, its moral views on murder. So maybe just that - Moral views on murder. PMC 19:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, it would be a delicate article to write. That's really the main reason I'd like to split it off. Otherwise, this article becomes delicate, when it should really be simple. I think perhaps the most encompassing title would be Moral views on homicide. Michael Ward 20:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It sounds good but it seems wrong. At first glance it appears to be a good title...but I dunno, something about it seems off. Because it's not actually a bunch of moral views on homicide, it's things that could be considered to be homicide, depending on your worldview. I think a better title is in order...um...possibly "Legal killing"? No, that's worse. Anyway, we need a better title. PMC 04:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Murder" is at first impression to most a moral term (a sense of something wrong or immoral). If there is a separate article, it should be for the more technical legal term.--Silverback 01:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps Theoretical homicide? Dunno. PMC 01:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If "murder" in this article were to be defined as both illegal killing, and also legal killing, then what would the article on just illegal killing be titled? -- Norm2 03:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Article needs re-writing and trimming

The article has far too much aimless chat in it. Couldn't someone with some legal expertise re-write and cut a lot?

I think the problem is that most people with legal expertise (that would include moi) are civil litigators who don't know that much about murder (besides what is necessary for the bar exam). Unfortunately, the experts in criminal law---the prosecutors, public defenders, and law professors---are all too overworked to bother with helping out on Wikipedia.
Plus it would be a lot of work to clean up this messy article.--Coolcaesar 11:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Howabout starting with a definition in the first paragraph (even if it recognises the ambiguities to be discussed in the rest of the article) -- I think this is the first Wikipedia article I've found that doesn't start with "[articlename] is..." Ojw 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

I'm somewhat reluctant to bring this up because I just know it's going to get ugly, but here goes.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't think it's the government's business what a woman does with her body, but I wouldn't personally encourage a girlfriend/wife/daughter to abort a pregnancy in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

A recent edit of the article by Swamp Ig removed Bill the Greek's suggestion that abortion could be classed as murder, reasoning it to be "too much of an ethical quagmire."

While I agree that it seems awfully POV to be spouting random propaganda stating "abortion is murder" -- and I'm not saying Bill's edit did this at all -- I think it would indeed be encyclopedic and instructive to include a discussion of countries in which the act of aborting a foetus is indeed legally classified as murder, if there are any such countries. Obviously this is delicate ground upon which to tread, but if handled properly, I think it would make a very worthwhile addition to the article. —chris.lawson (talk) 06:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Do excuse me, but there must be a misunderstanding here, as I certainly did not expressed any kind of opinion about the matter of abortion, including some change in the article about it. I only added regicide to the list of reference at the end of the article and corrected a few typographic errors. I am sorry for any inconvenience I might have unintentionally caused. --Bill the Greek 17:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I actualy agree, in that I think this does deserve some attention, however I felt that the way the subject was raised in an off-hand way was somewhat liable to misinterpretation. I thought about changing the sentence to make is less POV: eg:

Some people belive that abortion should be classed as murder or infantacide. In many countries there are laws about the specific conditions under which the proceedure may be performed, if at all.

Or even somthing like:

Whether or not abortion is to be moraly considered equivalent to abortion is a matter of some controversy, and the act has varying degrees of legality across different countries. See Abortion Debate for more details.

That way any debate is redirected to it's proper home.

--Swamp Ig 09:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original introductory paragraph I restored was much better at pointing to uses of "murder" that were controversial yet held with strong moral conviction. This is not the place to debate the abortion controversy, just to mention it. The FDA example adds the important distinction of murder as an indirect consequence of other coercion. With the FDA the coercion does not directly kill, but rather kills by coercively prohibiting or restricting access.--Silverback 16:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Moral Killing

Murder is a crime, as defined by the legislature and courts. My two hard copy dictionaries both say that murder is against the law. Also, eight definitions of murder on the Web [1] say that murder is the illegal taking of a life.

In their arguments against abortion and capital punishment, activists have started calling these activities "murder." Now, it appears that they're trying to change the definition of murder itself in Wikipedia to make the word mean any intentional killing.

These arguments do not belong in the opening paragraphs of the definition of murder. It's probably a good idea to include these arguments later in the article because activists have started using the term to mean any intentional killing. But the arguments should not distort the true meaning of murder by being part of the opening paragraphs.

According to current law and court interpretation, abortion is legal. Therefore abortion is not murder.

And capital punishment is not the crime of murder, it is the punishment for the crime of murder.

Just because activists try to use the word in an uncommon way to make their arguments stronger, does not mean that an encyclopedia should change the central meaning of the word.

I agree with Michael Ward above that "Moral Murder" should be a separate term in the encyclopedia, except that I would suggest the title "Moral Killing," since murder is a crime, and crimes are not usually considered moral. That article could go into discussions of self defense, euthanasia of the terminally ill, abortion, capital punishment, killing in war, and other issues that could possibly be considered moral killing. We shouldn't change the meaning of the word 'murder' to accommodate those who want to enhance their arguments by transferring the public's emotional revulsion to murder, over to their arguments.

I think Swamp lg made some good changes in an effort to clean up this messy article. When I get some time, I'll move the concept of moral killing to a lower place in the article, unless someone does it first. -- Norm2 00:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


My complaint with this article on murder, is that for six months or more, it has said that murder can be legal or moral.

Anti-abortion (and death penalty) activists call their cause "murder" in order to stimulate an emotional reaction and persuade their audiences. For example, in the Wikipedia article on abortion, it says: "Susan B. Anthony referred to it as "child murder ..." This is stated even though the fetus is not a child yet, nor is the act murder. I, personally would call it fetus killing. But just because activists use the word "murder" to enhance the effect of their arguments, doesn't mean that encyclopedias should change the accepted meaning of the word. Although it certainly could be mentioned in the article that activists use the word when attempting to persuade.

I have looked at all the encyclopedias I could find on the Web, and Wikipedia is the only one that says murder can be defined as legal or moral. For example:

  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online [2] Homicide. Killing of one human being by another. Homicide is a general term; it includes murder, manslaughter, and other criminal homicides as well as noncriminal killings. Murder is the crime of intentionally and unjustifiably killing another. <snip>
  • Columbia Encyclopedia [3] Murder. Criminal homicide, usually distinguished from manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought. <snip>
  • Columbia Encyclopedia [4] and Encyclopedia.com [5] Homicide. In law, the taking of human life. Homicides that are neither justifiable nor excusable are considered crimes. A criminal homicide committed with malice is known as murder, otherwise it is called manslaughter. <snip>
  • Infoplease [6] and Encyclopedia.com [7]. Murder. Criminal homicide, usually distinguished from manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought. <snip>
  • MSN Encarta [8]. Murder In criminal law, intentionally causing the death (homicide) of any person. <snip>

I have have shown links to all the encyclopedias on the Web and to eight dictionaries [9] that say that murder has to be legal. If anyone wants Wikipedia to say that murde is something other than this, they should give some references to encyclopediea or neutral sources that say murder can be legal or moral. Otherwise, Wikipedia will stand alone in making this claim. -- Norm2

Maritally-oriented murders

I watch the Court TV show Forensic Files very often. This habit has vastly affected by philosiphy towards marriage. I also believe that marriage is obsolete from this philosiphy.

I have learned that marriage-oriented phenomenons have bottomed-out into murder. Some of which may be divorce, extramarital affairs, suspicious insurance policy purchases as a motive for money, etc. I have learned that divorce triggers a give-up of posssessions and money from one of the spouses.

The people who have affairs outside of marriage can sometimes cause an extramarital pregnancy which can be hard to manage, that event can bottom out into murder of a spouse. I don't people should get married anymore.

Should we make an article called Marrige-oriented murder since this phenomenon is somewhat common? --SuperDude 21:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Manslaugter

I really think manslaughter desires its own article, and certainly more than the one sentence it's given here. It is an entirely different charge, and isn't even technically murder (at least in the US). Anyone agree? -R. fiend 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see BD2412 did an excellent job addressing this. Well done. -R. fiend 05:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Murder vs. Homicide

In the US, there are key differences between Homicide and Murder. Homicide is death caused by another person, such as through self-defense, or accidentally. Murder is death caused by another person through illegal means.

As far as this bit concerns murder, it seems wrong to me. Murder requires intent, not "illegal means," whatever that means. And the difference between homicide and murder is not, so far as I'm aware, one which exists only in the United States - it is a general common law distinction, at the very least. john k 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

attempted murder

Why does attempted murder redirect here when there is no general mention of it in the article, except a brief mention in the section on Canada? john k 23:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good question. Perhaps it should probably be its own article, since attempted murder has a huge number of interesting and unique aspects. For example, right now, the Supreme Court of California is considering the question of whether a person who shoots a bullet at one person and hits but does not kill another person can be convicted of attempted murder with regard to both persons. They just heard oral argument about a month ago at a special session in Redding.--Coolcaesar 15:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Murder statutes by nation

Where are the sections on murder in non-Western cultures? Surely China, Russia, Arab nations, and African nations deserve some mention here? Damn this fetish for Western culture. Ataru 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason that there are no sections on murder in non-Western cultures is the rather small number of English-speaking lawyers who actually understand both the languages and criminal statutes of the nations you mentioned. Because of such lawyers' rarity, they are in high demand (think of all the hapless Western tourists, executives, journalists, etc. rotting in jail in those countries) and therefore they don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia! Or if they have time to write on the side, it is much more profitable for their reputations to contribute to prestigious international law journals and magazines rather than Wikipedia.
Basically Wikipedia is the Rodney Dangerfield of the academic world --- it just can't get no respect. --Coolcaesar 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The missing amounts to every country outside Europe and North America except for Australia. There's no shortage of English speakers from (say) India, Pakistan, Malaysia, South Africa, Zimbabwe who could easily provide perspective on their nation's laws. Should also check the interwiki links for national content in other languages that could be translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

United States

I looked at the statistics linked in the United States section of the article and the "almost half of murders are committed by a narrow social group of black males age 17 to 50" line is way out. I did the maths and they actually make up 28.4%, so I changed the line to "over a quarter of murders...".

That said, I'm not sure why this particular fact is here as it seems somewhat racially antagonistic, but I don't want to remove it without seeing what the wider Wikipedia community thinks. --Maelin 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion See Also

I have removed the 'Abortion' link from the see also page as it has no relation to murder other than the views of anti-abortionists. I have not found evidence that Abortion is classed as murder in any jurisdiction (even in Ireland, although that article needs some work). If there is evidence of Abortion being classed as murder please provide it on the abortion page - then I'd be happier to have link listed.-localzuk 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen this after reinserting the Abortion link. It DOES belong to the article, as it DOES match the definition of murder at the top of the article. RossNixon 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely reasonable to discuss abortion on a murder page but the above statement requires correction. Whether abortion matches the definition of murder depends, in each country, on whether the definition of the victim requires him or her to be a "separate" person. The continuum of liability may be described as abortion until the moment the umbilical is severed and a separate person is established, and then infanticide. Other countries treat the child en ventre sa mere as being a separate person for the purposes of acquiring legal rights and for the purposes of assault and, in the event of death, murder. Thus, for example, if the attacker thrusts a knife into the mother's abdomen, also wounding the foetus, is this one offence of wounding or two? If the mother subsequently gives premature birth but the baby dies because of its prematurity, is this a murder of the baby? The answers depend on the precise wording of the law in the relevant country and blanket assertions are unhelpful. David91 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'm personally inclined to disagree with David91, but on the other, I have to concede that even my own state felt it necessary to specifically exclude abortions performed under the Therapeutic Abortion Act from the definition of murder. See 187 (murder) and Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 187.[10]
It is not the definitions of murder per se that are significant but the law on when a natural person comes into being. For example, suppose a rich uncle dies leaving a will which "bequeathes $1m to "children" and, if no children, to a charity". If the only child is en ventre sa mere, is this a child for inheritance purposes, or does the Home for Dogs get the loot? In most countries, it is an offence to administer chemicals with a view to procuring a miscarriage if not a registered physician. If a mother is a heroin addict and the heroin damages the foetus, can the baby sue for an intentional tort or is it a criminal offence to have administered a noxious substance to that person? Hence, murder/abortion is simply one aspect of a central issue about when a separate legal identity comes into being. and, with respect, I am doing no more than posing the legal issues that have to be considered by each state and it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me personally. David91 09:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Having just re-read the intro, I find that you need to qualify that. The intro discusses the legal status of murder and 'the filling of one human by another without good reason' (paraphrase). As I stated, there is no country, in my recollection that actually defines abortion as murder - as it is in itself a criminal offence in some countries. This is the 'Murder' page and discussing abortion is the role or the Abortion page. If we start duplicating our efforts then we will have an out of control encycolpedia. That said, it is only a 'See Also' link - but then why not include passive smoking or drink driving or any other thing that kills someone as a see also. We must keep the 'See Also' section within the remit of the article. -Localzuk (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I note that the page does not discuss or define the meaning of a "human being" which, in the light of my earlier comments, is not obvious and deserves a few sentences. And I also note that the page does mention the offence of death by dangerous driving because a conveyance is just as capable of being a murder weapon as a gun. To answer your point more directly, I think it would be constructive to discuss the issue on the murder page under the rubric of whichever countries treat a foetus as a justiciable person since, if the foetus is a person for some purposes, why not for the purposes of murder? If the law is not being consistently applied, there must be some strong public policies at work which ought to be made explicit. David91 11:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Should that not be discussed over at the Abortion page? If it is then I'd be happy to include the link here. It is just that as it stands there is little between the 2 articles through facts that link them. -Localzuk (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Since it is relevant to the definition of a murder to define a "human being" and it is relevant to distinguish abortion from murder given that definition, perhaps it should be on both? David91 11:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest including something vaguely like the following... what do you think?

"Many people believe procuring and/or performing an intentional abortion as murder - regardless of the laws of any particular country. This stance is often related to a religious worldview." There is no scientific doubt that an implanted embryo/fetus is a separate human being. Sure it is utterly dependant on the mother for sustenance, but so is a six-month old child! RossNixon 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer something with some references. Also, I know of many philosophers who do not think the foetus is a 'person' or 'human being' (as in the legal/moral definitions), one being Peter Singer. A six month old child can be transferred to a new mother whereas a 6 month old foetus cannot at present (or at least I have never read that this is possible). -Localzuk (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that "there is no scientific doubt" is POV and a philosophical nullity, as it rests on the definition of "separate human being", which is a religious and not a scientific construct. RossNixon betrays this deficit by limiting the alleged lack of "scientific doubt" to the case of the "implanted embryo/fetus", thus skirting the issue of whether an embryo is a "separate human being" if it has not yet implanted, has failed to implant or has formed in a petri dish; and for that matter, whether a newly constituted zygote is a "separate human being". The date of becoming separate (i.e. amenable to being nurtured outside a mother's body) shifts with politics and recedes with technology. Even when the day comes that a zygote can be brought to term entirely in vitro we are unlikely to find the Census Bureau registering all the embryos that fail to implant or parents scouring the Internet to bestow names on each one. Drawing the line is a matter of utility, religious belief and personal taste, not science. Appealing to science in the present context is no more valid than the misuse of the concept of science by those promoting creationism and intelligent design. Myron 12:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There could be a separate page dealing with the legal history, e.g. in English law, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, etc., as a context for the modern legal definitions. But the law is only informed by the views of biologists and philosophers indirectly, i.e. as filtered through the political consciousness of legislatures. Thus, a detailed discussion of such contextual information would not have a place on a law page. No doubt, those of you are interested in such a non-law page could write one. David91 13:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I put a paragraph under "Other uses..." to cover the idea that many people believe Capital Punishment and Abortion to be murder - even if they are not legally described that way by many countries laws. RossNixon 07:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: Femicide

"Femicide" is unique in the "See also" list in including mention of a subcategory. While the situation in Ciudad Juarez is disturbing, admitting this subcategory invites including a plethora of other subcategories, such as particularly notable massacres, etc. The link to the "Deaths in Ciudad Juarez" should be removed and integrated into the article on Femicide. Anyone willing to accomplish this? Myron 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Other uses of the word" section

Hiiiii ross. =)

The whole "Other uses of the word" section is rather poor, and I don't really see what it adds to the article. Murder of crows is already referenced in the disambiguation page. For the time being, though, I thought we could take a look at your edit: 

Although "murder" is mostly used in the "legal" sense in this article, 
many people believe that Capital Punishment and procuring or 
performing an intentional Abortion are murders - regardless of 
whetheror not these are judicially allowed by the law of any particular 
country. This stance is often related to a religious worldview.

This is kind of a tricky subject. It just doesn't work for me as it stands, and I think it needs to be restated, carefully. How about something like this?

"Murder" is sometime used in a political context to attach the ignominy of murder to a policy or act that is not murder in the legal sense. For example, pro-life advocates will at times state that "abortion is murder", and anti-death-penalty advocates will at times state that "capital punishment is murder". These two policies are cited most often, but killing of animals for fur, waging of war, and government policies that might indirectly cause death (for instance, allowing unsafe working conditions), have also been so characterized.

Sometimes this represents a statement of belief: the advocate believes that the policy or act (e.g. abortion) ought to be classified as legal murder, but more generally it is anappeal to emotion: the advocate wishes to establish the repugnancy of a given policy by equating it with murder on a moral level. --- Whew that's too long. I'm not nuts about it, really, what do you think ross? Herostratus 08:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks very well written to me. Thanks for making the effort! I don't really understand your use of "political" in the first line. Many people immediately think of politicians/parties/governments etc. I guess you meant this in some broader sense? Would another word fit? Societal? Or leave out "political context" altogether? RossNixon 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think the explanation is pretty good, but how about "Murder" is sometimes used rhetorically, to attach… since Wikt:Rhetorical means "used as a means to persuade". Myron 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably not "rhetorically", as this implies lound empty talk. This purpose as I see it is to "state an opinion that is strongly held", not necessarily to persuade. RossNixon 10:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
True, "rhetorical" nowadays has a pejorative connotation. By the way, it is neither necessary nor enlightening for the article to describe possible motives for using the term "murder" (such as hyperbolic, comic, political, polemical, pressing for criminalization, appealing to emotion, attention-grabbing, etc.). How about the following as succinct and non-judgmental? — "Murder" is sometime used to negatively characterize a policy or act that is not murder in the legal sense. Examples are: abortion, capital punishment, killing animals for fur, waging war, and government policies or commercial practices that might indirectly cause death (such as allowing unsafe working conditions). Myron 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom part

It seems rather inconsistent to refuse to allow 'manslaughter' to be listed, having less content about this than 'causing death by dangerous driving' (a full paragraph), which isn't murder either! Either get rid of anything that isn't 'murder' per se, or restore all the killing offences. (my preference would be to the latter, although of course the distinction should be made clear). Morwen - Talk 10:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Self-evidently, I did not consider it to be inconsistent since there is a general introductory heading of "murder and other killings" in which manslaughter is clearly stated to be the alternative in most countries. I added the other instances of "killings" for completeness because they were not mentioned anywhere else on the page. But even though this is a murder page and the heading above the UK bit is "Country-specific murder law", I have reinstated the manslaughter definitions. What does a bit of manslaughter matter on a murder page, particularly when the Law Commission are recommending a restructuring anyway. David91 11:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for re-instating the manslaughter sections, David, albeit in a slightly different form from my original contributions. I think the page is fuller and more accessible with them included. I think there was originally an inconsistency caused by including death by dangerous driving but not manslaughter, as the two are clearly both non-murder killing offences. One more nag though – given that killing under a suicide pact is not strictly an offence (it is merely a constituent defence to murder, reducing the charge to voluntary manslaughter), should it really be included in the same section is infanticide and causing death by dangerous driving?
Also, perhaps it's useful to point out to anyone monitoring this thread the causing death by dangerous driving is neither a murder nor a manslaughter offence, although it can be viewed as a replacement for specific instances of manslaughter involving motor vehicles. The essential difference between this and murder/manslaughter is that no intent whatsoever is necessary. (Compare murder, which requires malice aforethought; and manslaughter, which requires the commission of another criminal offence (which in turns requires intent) or circumstances of gross negligence, which under the law of tort imputes some element of subjective thought). The offence is one of strict liability, such that, provided the accused was driving to a dangerous level (measured objectively) and provided that a person was killed, the accused is automatically guilty of the offence. Dominic.sedghi 16:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is democratic so I yield to the majority view. I have also moved the suicide pact element to fit into ss2/4HA57. The only reason I included the few sentences on dangerous drive was that another on the Talk page asked for it. Otherwise, I would just have linked to the specific page on it. I have now written a page on murder in English law. Your comments would be valued. David91 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)



Androcide

I find it rather strange that despite men making up the largest demographic of murder victims, there is no link to an article on androcide (killing males). Stranger still, there isn't even an article on androcide!

Anyone feel like starting one? I would do it myself, but I'm not confident I would know where to begin. There are certainly lots of topical examples. Ratko Mladic springs to mind, who is wanted by the UN for murdering 10,000 people, including one massacre of 7,500 men and boys.

Thoughts anyone? MartinRobinson 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Andocide is a relatively modern coinage, not having the more specific history of regicide, patricide, etc. which relate to the horror felt by male law makers when a male of particular legal status was killed. I suspect the reason why there is no page on androcide is that, in general terms, one male is very like another male and there is no sound legal reason for differenting a separate crime from the antithetical femicide. As to Mladic, he is charged with war crimes which have a specific legal definition. David91 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought that whether something has a specific legal definition or not would be a pre-requisite for having its own article. As far as I know, there is no legal definition for "femicide", "massacre", "deicide", etc, etc, which are all linked to. Specifically murdering 7,500 males is androcide - Mladic targeted them for being male, which happens in many conflicts, and he is being charged with directing their murders (among other things of course). As far as I'm aware, there is no catch-all "War Crime" that people are charged with. If a male is more likely to be murdered than a female, then I would have thought that being male would be a highly contributory factor in a murder concerning a male victim, and so would warrant a link to its own article. These are complex issues though, and this is the reason I felt a separate article would be appropriate (and also the reason why I wouldn't be up to starting this myself). MartinRobinson 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an example of mutual incomprehension so I will leave it to others to continue the discussion. David91 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

US portion seems to side with "Pro-Life" POV

By mentioning crimes against a fetus, the article seems to take a pro-life stance Soulburglar 08:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article takes no stance by mentioning the existence of a statute and describing its terms. David91 10:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the statute is quite well covered under its own article, which is linked, no other statute is quoted at length, there is no mention of its basis in case laws, it is really a side issue to this article. This give an odd cast to the section, which Soulburglar probably misconstrued as POV. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Murder three in New York?

I'm not sure the "degrees" section is factually accurate, particularly with regard to New York. Is there really an offense of third-degree murder in New York? If so, why has it never come up in the usually excellently-researched show Law and Order? And I'm also not convinced there was no offense of third-degree murder in some states before Furman v. Georgia.

The line about California is a little misleading; it's true that the only degrees of murder in California are first and second (plus there's also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide which I think is a civil rather than criminal matter). Capital murder, however, is called "first-degree murder with special circumstances" in California; the special circumstances are proved in the guilt phase of the trial rather than the penalty phase, so in effect they constitute a degree of murder above first (call it "zeroth-degree murder"?). --Trovatore 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably been discussed but...

Since murder is an 'illegal act' the Holocaust article shouldn't say the mass murders were 'murders' but 'killings', as they weren't illegal within the Third Reich. I just want to see how far this goes and then decide if I'll take it to the Holocaust article, if it hasn't been done before I mean. Paulus Caesar 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific definition

The current definition states "In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is traditionally termed 'malice aforethought'".

This is a bit clumsy, especially the last segment. Moreover, it's a good legal definition, but not a great scientific definition. Me killing a dog, or a dog killing me surely is not murder. But what about one dog killing another dog? That seems to fit the general feeling behind 'murder'. What should the term 'monkey murders' mean? People killing monkeys, monkeys killing people or monkeys killing monkeys? I feel that murder, in a scientific sense, should only apply to members of the same species killing one another.

Oxford itself defines murder rather disappointingly: "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another" (premeditated?).

How about "Murder is the unlawful killing of a member of the same species through any action intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm" or is that too nerdy?

Alternatively, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being through any action intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. More generally, the term can also be applied to animals killing members of their own species".

With this definition 'monkey murders' would mean monkeys killing monkeys while 'monkey killings' would mean people (or other animals) killing monkeys.

- sYndicate talk 13:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's such a thing as a "scientific" notion of murder. Murder is a legal concept, and to some extent a moral one. To my mind it makes no sense to speak of dogs committing murder, though one might say it metaphorically. It's just possible that one might apply it to the great apes, if one recognizes them as moral agents. In that case, though, I doubt the same-species restriction truly reflects what natural usage would be (I think it would be at least as likely that a chimp's intentional killing of a human would be called murder, as a killing of another chimp). In any case we should be careful to avoid original research here; any claims about animals committing murder need to be sourced to some reference indicating that this is an accepted usage of the word. --Trovatore 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. To me, speaking of murder as a "scientific" concept is nearly as asinine as describing art or religion as "scientific." Science is a fact-finding process that seeks to understand observable phenomena in the physical universe. Law governs relationships between human beings. Syndicate is clearly conflating the scientific and jurisprudential definitions of "law," which are two different things. Of course, that's a common mistake among youngsters who haven't yet studied critical thinking in college; I used to make the same mistake myself when I was a kid. --Coolcaesar 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You both raise valid points. Let's forget about the dogs killing dogs example and focus on primates as Trovatore suggests. A Google search returns some references to the word being applied to inter-species killings. Notably, a paper from Ohio State University states "Orangutans rape, for instance, and chimpanzees murder".

My point is that murder is a concept beyond the current legal definition (and not in a metaphorical or anthropomorphic sense). Perhaps I should have used the word 'philosophical' instead of 'scientific'.

Forgetting the other species debate, I contend that "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being through any action intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm" is a better definition than the current one. It's simpler and more to the point. As I do not have a legal background, I would appreciate any pointed criticism from someone more qualified like Coolcaesar.

I would further like to append this definition with "The term can also be applied to animals (especially primates) killing members of their own species" as the word is clearly being used in this context on the web.

I will propose changes to the "lawful excuse" / "unlawful" part of the definition in a subsequent post as it causes problems for declaring state sanctioned ethnic cleansing such as the Holocaust as mass murder. - sYndicate talk 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. As I said, murder is a legal concept and a moral one; the legal and moral definitions don't always coincide. Some acts may not be murder according to the definition of a particular competent jurisdiction, but others may argue that they're still morally murder, or legally murder in some other competent jurisdiction (in these cases, international human-rights law). --Trovatore 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the article only addresses the legal and not, let's call it moral then, definition. I have tried to come up with a linguistic definition that is consistent with the law and popular usage. Some reference to international law that would classify any killing, whether lawful in the country it was committed or not, to still be murder if it violates international law, is still needed.
If you do not approve of my definition, please can you point out what makes is worse than the current definition? ("Malice aforethought" would be moved to a separate sentence.)
- sYndicate talk 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote intro

I have rewritten the opening section in an attempt to include a broader colloquial definition for murder as well as to drastically simplify the text (the previous opening seemed more like a legal dictionary entry than an encyclopedic one). It should be noted that I have a very basic understanding of the law.

Legibility changes

My goal was to provide an explanation of what the word 'murder' means that would be comprehensible by the average 12 year old.

Sentences such as "In attempted murder, the mens rea requirement, Latin for "guilty mind", is limited" is meaningless to everyone except those who are educated in law and already understand the meaning of murder. (The articles on means rea and malice aforethought are themselves vague and too technical.)

The opening now contrasts murder with attempted murder, homicide and manslaughter to give the reader a better idea of exactly where the boundaries of murder are.

Definition changes

As stated in the previous discussion, the word murder is also used on the web to describe non-human killings. To cater for this use I added "The term can also be applied to animals (especially primates) killing members of their own species".

The new opening now also explains that state-sanctioned killings that violate international law, such as the Holocaust and other ethnic cleansing killings, are still considered murder even if they were legalised. I agree that this is in the original research grey area, but challenge anyone to come up with a better reconciliation of the definitions for murder and legalised genocide.

Miscellaneous

Removed "In most countries murder is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law." I believe treason is the most serious crime in most countries. If you disagree please find a reputable source backing the original statement.

Various other improvements to language and style, in accordance to WP:MOS, were also made.

In general, the quality of articles in the Criminal Law category appears to be much lower than the average quality of WP articles.

- sYndicate talk 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between killing someone without lawful reason and killing someone unlawfully. One predisposes that killings are murder unless justified, the other that killing is okay unless there is a specific law against the circumstance. I noticed you are making edits over at the Holocaust page trying to to reclassify the murders as killings and also that your profile says you are a banker in South Africa. This edit is not going to fly. Sysrpl 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your reversion as you reinserted a lot of text now covered elsewhere in the article (e.g. attempted murder, year and a day rule).
Please reread my comments at Talk:The_Holocaust#Murder_continued and my comment above; I am not trying to reclassify the Holocaust as killings ("I agree that the Holocaust was murder" and "...shouldn't we have a definition of murder that unequivocally classify the Holocaust as murder?"). In fact, I lobbied for support for the exact opposite, got it and then changed the definition of murder to include the Holocaust killings. And then you went and reverted half of my changes.
I am pretty sure that there are problems and faults in my changes, but even so, the new version is better than the previous one. I do not understand what you mean with "there is a difference between killing ... without lawful reason and killing ... unlawfully"? My opinion is that killing is murder if it is unlawful, regardless of whether it was justified or not.
In future, please read the whole article or discussion before getting emotional, drawing premature conclusions and making blind block reverts.
I am not sure what my profile has to do with any of this?
- sYndicate talk 18:25, 09 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the Holocaust murder?

There is a lot of disagreement about various aspects of the Holocaust on its talk page, ranging from people claiming that "Nazi Germany was illegal" to that if contemporary Nazis kill Jews it is not necessarily murder.

In an attempt to at least get some consensus on which issues we agree on and which we disagree on, I've created a straw poll here. In order to be consistent, either both the definition of murder on this page and the article on Holocaust should allow for the killings to be called murder, or neither should. You comments will be appreciated.

- sYndicate talk 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • These discussions are flawed by the assumption that there's a uniform definition of "murder", which there isn't. There are legal definitions from various jurisdictions, there are definitions in common usage, and some would say there's a definition from natural morality (of course you have to be a moral realist to believe the last). In the case at hand, the Holocaust may or may not have been murder under Nazi law, on which I'm no expert. By any of the other definitions it was certainly murder. The articles should not attempt to make these issues appear simpler or clearer than they, in fact, are. --Trovatore 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying there shouldn't be an entry in the dictionary for 'love' as there is no "uniform definition" for it. - sYndicate talk 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get that? For one thing, WP's not a dictionary. For another, I certainly am not arguing for deletion of the murder article. All I'm saying is, on neither the murder article nor the one on the Holocaust do we need to give a definitive answer on whether the Holocaust was or was not murder, if the answer depends on which sense of the word you're using. (Now of course in any sense I would ordinarily use, it absolutely was murder, but that's orthogonal to the question at hand.) --Trovatore 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Wikipedia is a dictionary (although a lot of articles do seem to start out with definitions). I said that reasoning that there are too many different philosophies behind the word murder to define it definitively, would lead one to leave all similar hard to define words out of a dictionary, if you were writing a dictionary. I don't see any "sense of the word" murder that would allow the Holocaust to not be murder. - sYndicate talk 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In a dictionary, if there are multiple definitions, then you list them. Occasionally you may indicate that one or another usage is considered inferior, but you don't ordinarily single out one as the "real" definition. The sense of the word in which the Holocaust may not have been murder is the sense defined by Nazi law. As I say, I don't actually know whether it was murder according to Nazi law—it's entirely possible that it was; if you watch The Wanansee Conference or its English remake Conspiracy, you realize that the Germans of the time were strong legal realists and worried about this sort of thing, and whether they ever got around to actually making it legal according to their own standards I don't know. --Trovatore 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I feel uncomfortable with the thought that, if tomorrow, some country legalise killing all <insert-race-here>'s that killing them would not be considered murder. This seems to go against all interpretations, colloquial, moral and even legal, of the word.

On Nazi Germany, I haven't seen Conspiracy, but from what I can tell from the internet no law specifically authorising the killing of Jews were passed. If Nazi Germany did legalise the Holocaust and we decide that the killings were not murders it makes for a rather strange relationship between killing, murder and crimes against humanity: killing the Jews was not murder, but it was a crime against humanity. - sYndicate talk 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It would mean it was not murder according to Nazi law. It would not imply that it wasn't murder according to moral law, or international law. You still seem to be insisting that there must be a single answer to whether something is murder, and there just isn't, until it's agreed what sense of the word "murder" you're using. --Trovatore 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. - sYndicate talk 18:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Perjury in Death Penalty Cases

What are the statutes for perjury and falsifying evidence on the state's side in cases involving the death penalty? As such a person is using the state itself as a murder weapon, I pressume some states have harsh retaliations for such efforts. Since I have nothing to cite, I bringing the matter here to discuss.--Nuke-Marine 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google search on "capital perjury". Seems it's on the books in California. In practice, though, states hardly ever admit they've executed an innocent person, which I suppose they'd have to do to bring such a case. --Trovatore 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Capital perjury," I think, refers to the penalty of death for committing perjury in a capital case. To pass muster under the Eighth Amendment, I should think that the statute would have to include an element that the perjury cause the defendant to be convicted of a capital crime. California appears to include death as a penalty for "willful perjury or subornation of perjury" by which the defendant "procures the conviction and execution of any person." CPC 128. An element of the statute is the execution, which means that before the perjurer could be prosecuted the state would have to carry out the execution. Since California's death penalty appeals take so long, I'd imagine successful prosecutions for capital perjury in California would be rare indeed. ---Axios023 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

legalized killing

genocide is not a type of legalized killing. this contradicts the geneva articles on wiki. at least since 1948 this is the case, from the UN perspective at any rate. perhaps something like, "State-sponsored killing campaigns, such as genocide, although perhaps legalized by the sovereign conducting the said genocide, are not legal according to the Geneva Conventions (reference needed). There is disagreement however, as to whether all acts that have been deemed genocide by the world community, do in fact violate international law as described by The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ... " (Previous unsigned)

Where is the disagreement? Is this an accusation agaings the International Court of Justice or something else?LeadSongDog 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Murder demographics

I deleted the sentence "Some developed countries countries have murder rates higher than the US with Belgium at a per capita murder rate of 9.1", because the number for Belgium is incorrect. It is based on statistics of the federal governement that not only include murder and manslaughter, but also the unsuccessfull attempts to do so. Furthermore the number is based on a population of 10 million, although there are half a million more. The actual number of murders thus is much lower, but there are no actual figures to my knowledge. -- unsigned

Many reputable criminal statistics researchers warn that the comparison of crime statistics between countries is often problematic and should be done with great caution. The crimes included in the statistics, the way they are recorded and counted, and the normalising statistics are all often different. Your explanation is a classic example of the problem. -- Cameron Dewe 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no article for Autospy. Why not?

I search for the article on autospy and found nothing -- at least with that name. This is very odd. I would assume that someone could build an article on autospies. I would formally request it, but that process requires the requestor to include sources. I would have those only if I were in the medical industry. I am not. Will 01:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you maybe want autopsy, or are you looking for silicon 007s? --Trovatore 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Perhaps that should be one of the common misspelling pages. Will 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A See Also link in the various criminal pages like homicide, manslaughter, and murder might help to. Will 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Foul play in the Finnish section?

The finnish section implies that the deliberate but not-premeditated killing of someone with an axe blow in Finland is not murder. This I have been unable to corroborate in any form. A google search on "finnish supreme court" and "axe" returned 6 results - 3 irrelevant, plus this article and 2 direct copies of it, one of which had expired. Since this article is being cited in the gun control debate as a rationalization of why the European murder rate is so low (because they don't count e.g. axe-slayings as murders) this might be a deliberate but rather ludicrous piece of misinformation. On the other hand, it might simply be some looseness in the exposition that is being exploited foolishly in that debate. Does anyone know enough about Finnish law to make appropriate changes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuttee (talk • contribs) 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove viking section

The Viking section is fun, but it doesn't really fit into the article. Perhaps it should be moved to an article about Viking laws or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.55.101 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


Actually that idea isn't unique to vikings at all. The idea that each person had a value that the killer would pay was found in germanic and other nearby cultures. 63.231.129.229 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The penalty for murder

In the second sentence of the article it is stated that "The penalty for murder is usually life imprisonment,". I don't know if this is the case in the US, but I think that a word as "usually" is unjustified in a general article on murder. I think the sentence should be altered or (if I am mistaken and it really IS the "standard" punishment for murder on a global scale) have a reference to some sort of statistics or whatever backing this claim. Rasmuskold 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well saying "usually" is incorect, especially if we want to give a "globalized" view of murder. –Esurnir 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you kill a 'dead' person?

If a person is, legally, dead, for any reason you can think up...can you actually kill that person? If he or she is already dead, it can't be murder...can't even be hmoicide. At most, it could be called defiling a corpse, in some way. Any thoughts? DannyBoy2k 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 

   It could be attempted murder if you thought that person was still alive and tried to kill him.

Re it possibly being attempted murder: using NSW law as an example, it is attempted murder. Attempted murder, by definition, doesn't actually require the person to be alive (murder does, otherwise you can't fulfil the actus reus). Attempted murder can be defined as 'conduct sufficiently proximate to causing death' for the actus reus and 'intent to murder' for the mens rea. So, if you intended to kill a dead person, and your conduct was such that it would have killed the person if he was alive, it's attempted murder. You learn interesting things in Uni. LudBob 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect about New York law?

The article states that in New York, "Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances." However, NYS Penal Law says, Second degree murder is, "With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;" Where does the premeditation from the wiki article come in, just intent and a death is needed, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.26.220 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Etymology

Removed from the article:

The word 'Murder' is believed to have derived from a practice of the Normans shortly after their invasion of England. There was a presumption that every dead body found was a Norman body unless it could be proven to be English. If the dead body was not proven to be English, a fine was levied which was known as a 'Murdrum', from which the word 'Murder' is derived.<ref>http://www.coroner.org.uk/public/history.asp</ref>

Contradicted by the American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, which say it goes back to Old English morþor. Latin murdrum seems to be a loanword from Germanic rather than vice versa. --Ptcamn 12:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cultural aspect?

This could be tacky, but where is it possible to enter a section about murder as a cultural phenomenon in litterature, film, etc. Detective stories and thriller/horror movies depicts murder as a fascinating form of entertainment - and murder as an ethic idea is also questioned in classic works of fiction, like "Crime and Punishment" for instance. Just a thought.

Definition Wrong

The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought includes intentional killing (express malice) and reckless killings (implied malice). Unless there is some objection to changing the definition it should be changed. Veniceslug1 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he do it ??

The Rolling Stone Magazine printed an article that accused Jerry Lee lewis of murdering one of his wives. If you know which issue it was in, will you please post it for me. Also any other info on the aforementioned subject would be appreciated. Phuckit 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that your question is not particularly relevant to this article. It would be relevant, assuming that issue of Rolling Stone actually exists and can be located, at Jerry Lee Lewis. --Trovatore 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please rename article

I have made a requested edit to this article. But now I think it should be renamed. Can someone do this for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.214.74.32 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not gonna happen -- this article is about murder, not homicide. There's a separate article on homicide. I have reverted your change. --Trovatore 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the difference needs to be well explained in the article. There is no reference to homicide in the article. To many, murder and homicide are quite similar terms, with murder being a subset of homicide. To confuse matters, some jurisdictions and researchers use the term intentional homicide instead of murder. The differences in legislation between jurisdictions also confuses the issue. Also homicide is not always a crime as it may be justified in some circumstances. -- Cameron Dewe 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a good idea, but with care to avoid focusing too narrowly on any one usage of the term "murder" (for example, the legal usage) to the exclusion of others (say, moral). Your current text about "intent and lack of mitigation" is probably accurate for both, but has a legalistic cast to it. I'm not sure just how to improve it, but it seems that there should be some warning, early on, that this is not exclusively a legal concept. --Trovatore 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if it was put in the introduction? -- Cameron Dewe 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In what jurisdiction(s) is murder NOT a subset of homicide?LeadSongDog 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
None. The article should not be renamed, of course. This is trolling, and do not feed the trolls. Bearian 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder/Archive_1&oldid=1190113314"