For example, one pick asks if a priest should be convicted if he performed an exorcism which resulted in the link For that, I answered yes-- the priest should be convicted, or at least charged with manslaughter-- but not murder. Similarly, there are link seperate link concerning the legalities of a burglar/trespasser getting shot and killed on someone else's property. These are debate questions, but they're legally debatable, not so much morally, particularly as the question is always the culpability of the killer rather than the morality of the killer's actions. Because of this, we have to think of the situation in legal terms more than moral terms. It's for this reason that I'm detailing the differences between murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.
Legally, the term "murder" is a very specific one. Just because a person dies at another person's hands, it does not mean that the latter murdered the former. One of the major differences between murder and manslaughter is mens rea. Mens rea comes from the Latin phrase Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ("The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"). Manslaughter is a less culpable crime than murder due to the fact that murder requires malice aforethought, another legal term describing the intent of the murderer. This can include unintentional killing with a willful disregard for life. Murder is often charged when the crime was premeditated, is excessively violent, and/or serial.
However, manslaughter is different from murder. As mentioned earlier, there are two forms of manslaughter-- voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter does involve the intent to kill and often malice aforethought, but due to mitigating circumstances, is not the same as murder. Involuntary manslaughter involves killing someone without malice aforethought, or the intent to kill. There are several instances within each category. The three main instances of voluntary manslaughter have to do with provocation, imperfect self defense and diminished capacity. Suicide pacts can also fall under this category, depending on the state/country you are in (please keep in mind that my sources are mostly American law with smatterings of English law).
Provocation means exactly what you think it means-- if the killer was provoked enough to cause a reasonable individual to snap. This has a few caveats attached to it. For example, the loss of control must have been sudden and temporary. The provocation could have built up until the killer had experienced "the last straw" and snapped, or the provocation could have been intense pressure at one time. This could be another person provoking the killer, or a series of instances and situations (IE, losing one's job, wife, house, family, and money all in one day). Also, the lawyer using this defense would have to prove that his client is, indeed, a reasonable individual, and behaved in the way any other reasonable individual of his/her sex, age and station would have behaved.
Imperfect self defense is probably the most applicable to the "shooting a trespasser" scenario. This is what happens when a person makes the snap decision that lethal force is necessary to protect himself. This decision, while genuine, is often unreasonable or incorrect, and the person can be convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
Diminished capacity is also fairly self explanatory. Basically, if the person was in an abnormal mental state at the time, or currently, then the charges can be (but aren't always) lowered from murder to voluntary manslaughter. This, however, is not the same as pleading insanity, which is another topic altogether.
Constructive manslaughter, a form of involuntary manslaughter, describes a death at another's hands during the course of an unlawful act. Though malice is involved in the crime, the killing was not the source of the malice. For example, a recently fired, disgruntled employee returns to his old office to destroy his old computer. If, as a result, someone is hit in the head with the baseball bat as he swings it at the computer, or someone is electrocuted when trying to repair the computer, that disgruntled employee can be charged with involuntary homicide.
Other forms of involuntary manslaughter include criminally negligent manslaughter and vehicular or intoxication related manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when when severe negligence or recklessness results in a person's death. This is especially the case with caregivers such as doctors and nurses when they are grossly negligent and fail to pay proper attention to their patients. However, it can also occur if there is a (lawful) activity going on wherein a person dies as the result of that activity while showing signs of distress. Examples of this could be a psychologist's "rebirthing" technique where a patient dies of suffocation, after asking to be let out breathing irregularities and the psychologist does not let the patient out.
Vehicular and intoxication related manslaughter are, again, fairly self-explanatory. This is what people are charged with when they kill a person unintentionally with their automobile, or if they were inebriated. These two can couple together, and several drunk driving incidents unfortunately result in the charge of manslaughter. But also, if a person kills another person in a bar fight while he was under the influence, that's considered intoxication related manslaughter.
I hope this little explanation of legal terms cleared up some questions people might have about the "gray areas" of taking another person's life. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Also, this is a link, if this was too complicated or long-winded.
