Murder and Reckless Manslaughter Purposeful

¶ … Murder and Reckless Manslaughter

Purposeful Murder

The idea of purposeful murder is one that has been in the statutes of various states for some time. In the case discussed here, a Westfield, New Jersey father executed five members of his family in order to try to avoid debt. This particular crime was not carried out 'in the heat of passion' but with a premeditation that earned the man a determination of purposeful murder as opposed to a manslaughter conviction (State of NJ vs. List, 270 N.J. Super 169). Had the crime taken place in passionate circumstances where it was not planned, it would have been more likely that the individual that committed the crime would have been charged with manslaughter instead. Generally, crimes that are planned, or premeditated, are seen as being much more significant and worthy of much more prison time or harsher penalties than crimes that are not planned and just 'happen' because of the provocation that an individual faces from someone else, such as in a fight.

It was determined that the father was culpable in the crime, and the argument that it was done in passion and fear because of debt did not sit well with the jury, who determined that the father did indeed decide to take the lives of five of his family members well before the crime actually took place, as opposed to simply doing so while he 'was not thinking clearly' (2C: 11-3). The causation for a purposeful murder conviction was also apparent, and the conduct that the father demonstrated before, during, and after the crime fit the definition of conduct that needed to be seen in order to convict an individual of purposeful murder (State of NJ vs. List, 270 N.J. Super 169).

Reckless Manslaughter

In the case discussed where reckless manslaughter is concerned, the individual in question had two altercations with a bouncer in a bar, and then later shot another man, who he then claimed he thought was the bouncer from the bar (State of NJ v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402). The original jury did not agree with this, but the other court reversed that verdict and determined that the individual was indeed guilty of reckless manslaughter and not purposeful murder (State of NJ v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402). There were specific reasons why the new assessment of the case determined that the man was guilty 'only' of reckless manslaughter as opposed to purposeful murder. These include the culpability, causation, and conduct elements that are seen in a manslaughter conviction (2C: 11-4).

Where culpability is concerned, it is clear that the convicted man was the one that killed the other man, who he states he believed to be the bouncer from the bar. However, the man was also quite drunk at the time, and therefore his judgment of who was who, as well as his judgment of how upset he should be for being denied entrance to the bar, was likely impaired. He used this as part of his defense in requesting a finding of reckless manslaughter as opposed to the purposeful murder conviction that he was facing. Causation is important here as well, because the individual that committed the crime was twice forcefully refused entry to the bar, and a 'reasonable person' would have likely been upset by this (2C: 11-4). The individual claimed that he was provoked by this to the point of committing the crime that he was judged guilty of. His conduct also appears to fit the definition of reckless manslaughter. There was not much time elapsed between the original altercations and the shooting of the man that was thought to be the bouncer. In other words, the individual did not have a lot of time to 'cool down' between the altercations at the bar and the crime that he chose to commit (2C: 11-4).

Conclusion

The two crimes are different in several ways. The first case, in which the individual received a verdict of purposeful murder, was clearly a case where the crime was planned out in advance and then carried out for a specific purpose. The second case, in which the individual received a verdict of reckless manslaughter, was less clear, but it was determined by the court upon appeal that the crime was not planned or premeditated, and that it was carried out due to the upset that the individual felt at the time. In other words, it was a crime of passion and a reasonable person could have been provoked to the point of taking someone else's life under those same circumstances.

The culpability and conduct elements of the two crimes differ greatly, and that is much of the reason that the verdicts for the two individuals were quite different. Of course, the first case also has the added information that more than one person was killed. While this is important and does figure into the case, it is not the central point in why the first individual received a verdict of purposeful murder and the second individual received a verdict of reckless manslaughter. The main difference in the culpability and conduct issues is the clear premeditation that took place in the first case, and which was not seen in the second case to be examined.

The first court thought that there was premeditation, but the most recent examination of this case by a court of law determined that the premeditation could not be proven, and that it was more likely that that individual was simply provoked to the point that he 'lost his temper' and took the life of the individual that he felt had wronged him. Simply speaking to someone inappropriately is not enough for this type of defense, but the individual was also pushed around by the bouncer at the bar twice, was pinned against the wall by the door, and was kicked, which the court determined could be enough to provoke a reasonable person into the actions that the individual took shortly after the altercations took place.

These kinds of facts and determinations are highly important as to whether an individual is convicted of purposeful murder or reckless manslaughter, and they must be proven in order for a particular verdict to be rendered. if, however, the components of purposeful murder cannot be proven, then the individual will likely be found guilty of a lesser charge, such as reckless manslaughter. This kind of charge does not carry the death penalty, and also carries a lower prison term than the purposeful murder charge, so it is obviously the most desirable of the guilty verdicts that a person could receive under those circumstances.