That is a difficult situation. I think it is necessary to sympathize with an individual, but every crime that is committed is justified by some reason. If there was an indication that he was particularly vulnerable to insults or depression or insecurity issues, then maybe I would be a bit lenient in my judgment, but I don't think he should just get a slap on the wrist. Murder is terribly wrong.
Sounds like the MPC (Model Penal Approach), the reasonable person in the person's sitaution given their background. So you wouldn't take into account say if they had a temper, but you would take into account if they came from a violent home and what a reasonable person from a violent home would do in the situation. What do you think of the first degree murder charge (probably a felony murder charge), most likely he did not intend someone to die, is it right to charge him with first degree murder?
This sounds more like involuntary manslaughter or something, but that is an amateur's understanding. I think it will be very difficult to prove that he had premeditated actual murder with that flaming broom.
Yeah, its been two weeks since I taken criminal law, the MPC approach I mention I think has to do with voluntary manslaughter.
Generally, depraved heart murder (a type of second degree murder charge) and reckless involuntary manslaughter are really close and hardto tell apart, usually it turns on how morally culpable the jury thinks the person is. You defense of the murder fails because felony murder usually goes something like this-if person committed a dangerous felony like armed robbery, arson, kidnapping, and somebody dies they are liable for murder becasue we ASSUME they knew the risk. Thus the state doesn't have to prove he intended to kill somebody or that the idea even crossed his mind, only that he intended to committ a dangerous felony-somewhat similiar to the thinking of george jefferson here.
Thanks for the little lesson. That was interesting and got me excited about law school. (<----dork)