Regarding Manslaughter

[SomeGuy9283]

Insofar as I can tell, the manslaughter law enacted presently deals with voluntary manslaughter wherein the perpetrator means the victim harm but does not mean to kill them.

If the HoP, fed up with the QM's corruption and inefficiency, beats them with their baton -leading them to die from their injuries- when the intent to kill was never present, they are guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

However, what about when someone dies as a result of incompetence, not malice? Does the QM commit manslaughter when he accidentally disables the safety feature on a mulebot and it runs down some scientist? Does the surgeon who fails to hook up a blood supply to patient with internal bleeding, causing them to expire on the table? Or what about that baldie MD who gibs an otherwise clonable body with SR?

I would propose a law being added which essentially covers involuntary manslaughter. Not sure if it should be major or exceptional.

Edit- @TullyBBurnalot

Edited June 7, 2017 by SomeGuy9283
Summoned the Chief Justice

[shazbot194]

While I do think it would be good to add voluntary manslaughter, I wonder if because of the way laws are set up right now if it would make any difference in sentencing. I think offering a special circumstance to manslaughter might be better and allow for less harsh sentencing more effectively as well as causing less confusion. 

As for you examples, as far as I know/think, the QM would be charge, the surgeon and MD would not, but the MD might be fired due to incompetence. This is because the QM neglected his duties in such a way he knowingly made a workplace hazard dangerous enough to kill. The surgeon did not commit manslaughter because the patient died from injures the surgeon did not cause and were rather trying to fix, but a small talk from the CMO wouldn't be unjustified. The MD did not really kill someone, so can't be charged with killing someone, but they had showed gross negligence in their job and should be chewed out and/or fired for such a massive offence.

[SomeGuy9283]

2 minutes ago, shazbot194 said:

While I do think it would be good to add voluntary manslaughter, I wonder if because of the way laws are set up right now if it would make any difference in sentencing. I think offering a special circumstance to manslaughter might be better and allow for less harsh sentencing more effectively as well as causing less confusion.

REEEE
The whole point of this is that voluntary manslaughter is the only thing covered under the current law.

I think Criminal Negligence would make a nice 15 minute catch-all crime for stuff above workplace hazard, but not willful sabotage.

[shazbot194]

32 minutes ago, SomeGuy9283 said:

REEEE
The whole point of this is that voluntary manslaughter is the only thing covered under the current law.

I think Criminal Negligence would make a nice 15 minute catch-all crime for stuff above workplace hazard, but not willful sabotage.

Oops, I am blind, although adding involuntary manslaughter would in a roundabout way add non-involuntary manslaughter. As well, having Criminal Negligence would be massively helpful.

Edited June 7, 2017 by shazbot194
not edited, I just hit edit and the save button my accident.

[EvadableMoxie]

There should be a concept of "Mens Rea" when it comes to prosecuting someone for manslaughter.  Their intentions and knowledge at the time are important to determining culpability.  

There's a really cool blog that discusses all of this stuff here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=188

If someone wasn't at least reckless, they shouldn't be facing brig time, in my opinion. 

[TullyBBurnalot]

While nice in theory, adding even more layers of complexity to Space Law is bound to end in disaster in practice.

As for Manslaugher, it does not take intention into account, and intentionally so.