|
roomforthetuna posted:That seems reasonable, and (despite my earlier remarks) I generally appreciate the idea of not codifying laws and instead doing something more like "it's a crime if everyone agrees it's a crime", though it would typically be nicer to have a jury involved if you're going to use that method. It's worth noting that Persampieri v Massachusetts was not decided via jury; Persampieri plead guilty to manslaughter after being indicted on 2nd degree murder. The case cited was for a writ of error for the original trial claiming that the indictment and, thus, conviction were in error. The decision not only dismisses that claim but states that it was sufficient for first degree murder. Further, the decision ends with a restatement of the facts of the case and concludes: quote:The stipulation, for reasons stated above, is no part of the record in a writ of error, but even if it were properly before us, it would not change the result. The facts revealed in the stipulation were sufficient, we think, to have warranted a jury in returning a verdict of manslaughter. The principles governing involuntary manslaughter are set forth at length in Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383 , 396-401, and in Commonwealth v. Bouvier, 316 Mass. 489 , 494-495, and need not be repeated. We are of the opinion that the petitioner's conduct could be found to be criminally wanton or reckless. We do not decide whether the stipulated facts might warrant a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The petitioner's wife was emotionally disturbed, she had been drinking, and she had threatened to kill herself. The petitioner, instead of trying to bring her to her senses, taunted her, told her where the gun was, loaded it for her, saw that the safety was off, and told her the means by which she could pull the trigger. He thus showed a reckless disregard of his wife's safety and the possible consequences of his conduct. This matches nicely with the final remarks from the ruling by the Supreme Justice Court.
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Would he somehow be less dead and she be less responsible if they weren't dating? He wouldn't be dead at all. Unless this is some sort of "everything happened BUT they weren't dating" question, which makes about as much sense as "Hitler BUT not crazy" scenarios. It's the relationship they had that allowed as much contact and trust that was needed for her to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You can trust people you aren't loving. Like, have you never had a friend before? Your friends are typically more at a distance than your SO. Have you ever had one before? What is the crux of your complaint here? That them dating is immaterial to the case?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 18:22
|
|