3 ms·

(IANAL) AFAIK, intent matters a lot in the criminal law, and if the statement is unambiguous it's significantly easier to prove the intent.

leereeves 3y ago
Yeah, killing with intent is the very definition of murder. (Edit: Unlawfully) Killing someone without intent is manslaughter, with (generally) a much lighter punishment. But to answer GP's question, AIUI, merely saying "Im going to murder this person?" does not make someone guilty of murder or attempted murder, or (perhaps surprisingly) even conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy usually requires an overt act, like buying a weapon, in addition to the statement of intent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  Generally it’s only manslaughter if you were reckless or negligent when you killed the person.
- weaksauce 3y ago
  there's more nuance to the manslaughter than just killing without intent. you generally have to be doing something wrong in the first place to have it rise to criminality. ianal though and different localities judge it differently.
nonethewiser 3y ago
But the point is you would also have to actually kill them.
- qup 3y ago
  no, the point is once they're dead, it matters greatly whether you intended to kill them or not
- Aachen 3y ago
  I agree with the sibling comment about what the point was, though of course you are technically correct as well, but in addition it might be relevant to mention that attempts at someone's life are also punishable. Whether the analogy continues to work for anti-monopoly law, I don't know
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Not really. You can’t know if someone you never met killed someone after the fact so you rely on evidence. Some of which is what you say. The jury are regular people, not logicians. In addition killing is not always a crime.
qingcharles 3y ago
Many criminal trials have no direct evidence and are totally reliant on circumstantial evidence, so the statement above would be very detrimental to the defense.

leereeves 3y ago

Yeah, killing with intent is the very definition of murder. (Edit: Unlawfully) Killing someone without intent is manslaughter, with (generally) a much lighter punishment. But to answer GP's question, AIUI, merely saying "Im going to murder this person?" does not make someone guilty of murder or attempted murder, or (perhaps surprisingly) even conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy usually requires an overt act, like buying a weapon, in addition to the statement of intent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

l33t7332273 3y ago
Generally it’s only manslaughter if you were reckless or negligent when you killed the person.
weaksauce 3y ago
there's more nuance to the manslaughter than just killing without intent. you generally have to be doing something wrong in the first place to have it rise to criminality. ianal though and different localities judge it differently.

nonethewiser 3y ago

But the point is you would also have to actually kill them.

qup 3y ago
no, the point is once they're dead, it matters greatly whether you intended to kill them or not
Aachen 3y ago
I agree with the sibling comment about what the point was, though of course you are technically correct as well, but in addition it might be relevant to mention that attempts at someone's life are also punishable. Whether the analogy continues to work for anti-monopoly law, I don't know
quickthrower2 3y ago
Not really. You can’t know if someone you never met killed someone after the fact so you rely on evidence. Some of which is what you say. The jury are regular people, not logicians. In addition killing is not always a crime.

qingcharles 3y ago

Many criminal trials have no direct evidence and are totally reliant on circumstantial evidence, so the statement above would be very detrimental to the defense.