Also, in some European countries, it is not murder if a mother kills her child, provided that the child is less than 356 days old. AND - The mother has been found to have soem disturbance of mind resulting from the effects of childbirth. Thus the element of mental disturbance (e.g. post-partum depression, or psychoses) is essential, although in practice such evidence can be minimal, if non-existant. JN

Perhaps you would like to tell us which European country this is. I'd like to know. -- Derek Ross

This makes it sound like the mother gets off scot free:

In many countries — including Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia — infanticide laws allow women to kill their child in the first year of his or her life.

A mother is certainly not ALLOWED to kill her child in the UK, simply because it is aged less than one year! However she is treated more leniently if it can be proven she has disturbance of mind ...........JN

I know for a fact in the UK and Australia that's not the case -- the mother might be found guilty of a lesser crime than murder, with lesser penalties, but she'd still be convicted of SOMETHING. -- An.

At least that is more accurate ....JN

The anon above is correct this is simply incorrect for the UK and Australia, I don't know about other countries, so i've moved the para to here.

In many countries — including Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia — infanticide laws allow women to kill their child in the first year of his or her life. Some allow the mother to kill all her children, providing that one child hasn't yet celebrated a first birthday. The killer need then only show that the "balance of her mind was disturbed" by childbirth and having a baby in the house.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel082801.shtml This is from there - it seems that this part is correct

In many nations, including Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Australia, there is an infanticide clause that exempts mothers who kill a child under the age of 1 from being charged with murder. Instead, these laws typically provide that the maximum charge that can be levelled is manslaughter.

This is simply BAD inaccurate reporting. Mintguy

I don't think so Mr.Mintguy...... This is actually the most accurate thing I have read on the whole page!!!! JN

Well then clarify - there is a relevant exception for mothers, that is clear from both articles i quoted (the other is from bbc - see other talk page).

There is no exception for mothers in the UK. The BBC is wrong or, more likely, over-simplifying reported cases. Post-natal depression (as we call it) may be a mitigating factor in sentencing (see R v Isaac [1998]) or may form the basis for a defence of provocation (see R v Smith [2000]). The relevant extract in R v Smith is: "A woman suffering from post-natal depression may kill on trivial provocation or none at all. If the provocation is insufficient to cause a person of ordinary self-control to act as she did, then her actions are attributable to her depressive illness and not to the provocation.". I'll amend the page. Bob 22:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This not should be allowed to happen in any country because it is wrong.

Is killing done by a terrorist murder? A couple of example questions.

1. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo shot a number of people in the area of Washington DC. At the time and since, their actions have been referred to "terrorizing the city". Are they murderers, terrorists or both?
2. Is a suicide bomber that kills people other than himself a murderer?

The news broadcasts these days seem to rarely use the word "murder" and its derivates in referring to a wide variety of acts, preferring to use "kill" or even the passive voice "xxx people were killed as a result of ...."

Guidance please OneVoice 04:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Yes" to both Y/N questions, and "both" to the other. It's important not to confuse journalism with law.

It's also worth noting that the press did get it right to a certain extent in mentioning terrorization: in one of the jurisdictions, that is an aggravating circumstance, and sufficient to put the death penalty on the table.

Should discuss "necessity" in this context. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. Application of the concept of 'necessity' to the DC sniper case is a lunatic-fringe political theory. End of discussion.

I have heard two different versions of the concept:

1. There is no felony murder without a death that would be a murder by someone, even in the absence of the shared felony. That is, working in concert to commit the felony simply makes the murder "contagious" to all the conspirators.
2. "If you run down a drunk during the getaway, that's a murder." That has at several interpretations, corresponding to these specific examples:
   1. You don't even have a gun, but pretend to; the cop in the lobby follows you out, draws his gun and yells "Stop, Police!" You get flustered and turn toward him without raising your hands; he shoots, killing a bystander; you faint dead away. Are you liable for felony murder of the bystander?
      1. I would believe yes. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      2. No felony murder here. What's the predicate felony? Pretending to have a gun? Maybe depraved heart murder.
   2. Does it make a difference if it was one of your partners the cop kills?
      1. I would not think so. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Some states will cut off felony murder if killing is justified, i.e. the cop has justification defense for shooting confederate. Might be depraved heart murder if confederates incited the shootout.
   3. Nobody gets shot, and the getaway car is proceeding at the normal pace of traffic, blending in with the citizenry; as soon as the drunk staggers into sight from behind the truck parked in the middle of the block, you slam on the brakes, but he's too close and you run him over.
   4. Felony murder ends as soon as the criminals are in a place of relative safety. If the "chase" is considered over then no FM.
      1. If there's a quick response to the accident, AND a timely report of the robbery over the radio, AND the cops put 2+2 together and perform a search of the vehicle (incidental to the accident investigation) this would be a likely scenario for a FM prosecution to occur. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      2. This shouldn't have anything to do with it.
   5. Same situation, but the drunk dies bcz you're driving fast enought that it would be negligent homicide, but, in the absence of the robbery, it would not be murder (no "depraved indifference to human life").
   6. Reckless driving + conscious awareness of the risk + depraved indifference to human life = depraved heart murder
      1. Same as previous. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these are felony murders, if any? --Jerzy(t) 23:12, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

I've removed the following, which would be good info in an article on American attitudes toward crime:

Despite the large amount of attention that the media in the United States devote to murder trials, fewer people are murdered each year in the United States than die from suicide, from motor vehicle injuries, or from AIDS.

In this article, it's just floating loose, and thus only a distraction.

I believe in the UK the first paragraph is not correct. I believe that to prove murder you do not have to prove "intention to murder" but that, for example, to kill whilst acting intending to cause GBH (when the death was a foreseeable risk) is murder. I believe it is well established for example that where someone is coshed but dies because of a thin skull this is murder. However, I am not basing this on being a legal expert, just on the way the judge explained it to us when I did jury service recently--(talk)BozMo 15:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence under U.S. Punishment for Murder appears incorrectly written. Currently, it states, "However, due to overcrowding of the American prison system ... murderers serve only 7 years of real time." Shouldn't it read, "an average of 7 years"? The way it's written now make it seem that all murderers, as opposed to the average murderer, serve 7 years, which is clearly not factual. Does anyone have a citation that would confirm that 7 years is the average? - Walkiped 02:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The section on U.S. murder is completely erroneous. Voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder are not the same. Also third degree murder and involuntary manslaughter are not the same. Whoever wrote this would not pass first year criminal law.

The article contains a section about Germany. I am not sure if the following information should be included:

- number of murders/manslaugther/whatever-it-is-called per year: ~1000 - number of murders: ~400 - percentage of murder-cases, where the murderer is convicted: 94-95%

Lifelong actually is 30 years, if I´m not totally mistaken. 81.201.224.13 12:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this issue only applies to the Canadian numbers but the rates quoted are "homicide rates", which includes crimes called "murder" as well as "manslaughter", etc. What crimes are included is mentioned in the article. Also, the source should be "Statistics Canada", rather than the 2001 Census, which uses the term "homicide" rather than murder. Should this content appear in homicide instead? --Big_Iron 10:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the following section:

U.S. Punishment for Murder

The typical punishment for murder in the U.S. is a 20 years to life sentence. However, due to overcrowding of the American prison system caused by the War On Drugs, murderers serve only 7 years of real time.

The phrase "caused by the War On Drugs" is irredeemably POV and should not be re-inserted. The rest should be re-inserted if corroborating data can be cited. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 23:13, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

In the UK, there is now an offence distinct from manslaughter called 'causing death by dangerous driving'. I would be pleased for an explanation of why this distinct offence came into being.

For instance, in countries where the government is not legitimately elected, perhaps what is legally murder in those countries, may not be moral murder and have many non-legal (in that country) justifications. For example, someone stooping to perform tax collection for Saddam Hussein and who is threatening to put an alleged offender into his unjust legal system, may be justified in commiting legal murder to escape or discourage other tax collectors. Such "legal" murder could be argued to not be moral murder.--Silverback 22:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or just, you know, the opinons of people that think that murder is a wholesome hobby for the whole family. It'd be no worse than the stupid "POV" debates on the paedophilia pages.

It seems to me that Murder (moral) should be a separate article. As Silverback points out, moral and legal notions of murder do not always coincide. So, why try to force them into the same article? There is no need to convolute an article on the legal definition of murder with discussions of abortion, the death penalty, the FDA, etc. On the other hand, an article about moral notions of murder is perfectly legitimate, and can very easily expand into a detailed article in its own right. Michael Ward 06:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is more informative to compare and contrast them. Too many people confuse the two, or think the ideal would be for them to coincide.--Silverback 08:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly a contrast to the legal definition would be useful in an article on Murder (moral). Such a discussion does not seem particularly helpful to an understanding of the legal concept however. Though, a pointer to Murder (moral) at the top of the page would be helpful. The recent additions, on whether the FDA commits murder by regulating drugs or whether the death penalty or abortion are murder, seem to me something of an article hijacking. Though a perfectly valid subect for an article in their own right, they have little to do with the original subject of this article, a legal concept. In fact, the only connection is that they are not examples of legal murder. This is highlighted by the fact that these additions are now the lead paragraph; they were unable to fit naturally within the pre-existing structure. Does anybody else have thoughts on this? Michael Ward 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But really, moral murder is only a subjective concept. Different groups and people have different views on what exactly constitutes murder. You'd have to be extremely careful with what you write, and present the opposing side as well. If you feel you must split it off, I think you need a better title than Moral murder, because it isn't actually murder of the morals, its moral views on murder. So maybe just that - Moral views on murder. PMC 19:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well yes, it would be a delicate article to write. That's really the main reason I'd like to split it off. Otherwise, this article becomes delicate, when it should really be simple. I think perhaps the most encompassing title would be Moral views on homicide. Michael Ward 20:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It sounds good but it seems wrong. At first glance it appears to be a good title...but I dunno, something about it seems off. Because it's not actually a bunch of moral views on homicide, it's things that could be considered to be homicide, depending on your worldview. I think a better title is in order...um...possibly "Legal killing"? No, that's worse. Anyway, we need a better title. PMC 04:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Murder" is at first impression to most a moral term (a sense of something wrong or immoral). If there is a separate article, it should be for the more technical legal term.--Silverback 01:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Theoretical homicide? Dunno. PMC 01:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If "murder" in this article were to be defined as both illegal killing, and also legal killing, then what would the article on just illegal killing be titled? -- Norm2 03:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has far too much aimless chat in it. Couldn't someone with some legal expertise re-write and cut a lot?

I think the problem is that most people with legal expertise (that would include moi) are civil litigators who don't know that much about murder (besides what is necessary for the bar exam). Unfortunately, the experts in criminal law---the prosecutors, public defenders, and law professors---are all too overworked to bother with helping out on Wikipedia.

Plus it would be a lot of work to clean up this messy article.--Coolcaesar 11:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howabout starting with a definition in the first paragraph (even if it recognises the ambiguities to be discussed in the rest of the article) -- I think this is the first Wikipedia article I've found that doesn't start with "[articlename] is..." Ojw 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat reluctant to bring this up because I just know it's going to get ugly, but here goes.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't think it's the government's business what a woman does with her body, but I wouldn't personally encourage a girlfriend/wife/daughter to abort a pregnancy in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

A recent edit of the article by Swamp Ig removed Bill the Greek's suggestion that abortion could be classed as murder, reasoning it to be "too much of an ethical quagmire."

While I agree that it seems awfully POV to be spouting random propaganda stating "abortion is murder" -- and I'm not saying Bill's edit did this at all -- I think it would indeed be encyclopedic and instructive to include a discussion of countries in which the act of aborting a foetus is indeed legally classified as murder, if there are any such countries. Obviously this is delicate ground upon which to tread, but if handled properly, I think it would make a very worthwhile addition to the article. —chris.lawson (talk) 06:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Do excuse me, but there must be a misunderstanding here, as I certainly did not expressed any kind of opinion about the matter of abortion, including some change in the article about it. I only added regicide to the list of reference at the end of the article and corrected a few typographic errors. I am sorry for any inconvenience I might have unintentionally caused. --Bill the Greek 17:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actualy agree, in that I think this does deserve some attention, however I felt that the way the subject was raised in an off-hand way was somewhat liable to misinterpretation. I thought about changing the sentence to make is less POV: eg:

Some people belive that abortion should be classed as murder or infantacide. In many countries there are laws about the specific conditions under which the proceedure may be performed, if at all.

Or even somthing like:

Whether or not abortion is to be moraly considered equivalent to abortion is a matter of some controversy, and the act has varying degrees of legality across different countries. See Abortion Debate for more details.

That way any debate is redirected to it's proper home.

--Swamp Ig 09:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original introductory paragraph I restored was much better at pointing to uses of "murder" that were controversial yet held with strong moral conviction. This is not the place to debate the abortion controversy, just to mention it. The FDA example adds the important distinction of murder as an indirect consequence of other coercion. With the FDA the coercion does not directly kill, but rather kills by coercively prohibiting or restricting access.--Silverback 16:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Murder is a crime, as defined by the legislature and courts. My two hard copy dictionaries both say that murder is against the law. Also, eight definitions of murder on the Web [1] say that murder is the illegal taking of a life.

In their arguments against abortion and capital punishment, activists have started calling these activities "murder." Now, it appears that they're trying to change the definition of murder itself in Wikipedia to make the word mean any intentional killing.

These arguments do not belong in the opening paragraphs of the definition of murder. It's probably a good idea to include these arguments later in the article because activists have started using the term to mean any intentional killing. But the arguments should not distort the true meaning of murder by being part of the opening paragraphs.

According to current law and court interpretation, abortion is legal. Therefore abortion is not murder.

And capital punishment is not the crime of murder, it is the punishment for the crime of murder.

Just because activists try to use the word in an uncommon way to make their arguments stronger, does not mean that an encyclopedia should change the central meaning of the word.

I agree with Michael Ward above that "Moral Murder" should be a separate term in the encyclopedia, except that I would suggest the title "Moral Killing," since murder is a crime, and crimes are not usually considered moral. That article could go into discussions of self defense, euthanasia of the terminally ill, abortion, capital punishment, killing in war, and other issues that could possibly be considered moral killing. We shouldn't change the meaning of the word 'murder' to accommodate those who want to enhance their arguments by transferring the public's emotional revulsion to murder, over to their arguments.

I think Swamp lg made some good changes in an effort to clean up this messy article. When I get some time, I'll move the concept of moral killing to a lower place in the article, unless someone does it first. -- Norm2 00:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint with this article on murder, is that for six months or more, it has said that murder can be legal or moral.

Anti-abortion (and death penalty) activists call their cause "murder" in order to stimulate an emotional reaction and persuade their audiences. For example, in the Wikipedia article on abortion, it says: "Susan B. Anthony referred to it as "child murder ..." This is stated even though the fetus is not a child yet, nor is the act murder. I, personally would call it fetus killing. But just because activists use the word "murder" to enhance the effect of their arguments, doesn't mean that encyclopedias should change the accepted meaning of the word. Although it certainly could be mentioned in the article that activists use the word when attempting to persuade.

I have looked at all the encyclopedias I could find on the Web, and Wikipedia is the only one that says murder can be defined as legal or moral. For example:

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online [2] Homicide. Killing of one human being by another. Homicide is a general term; it includes murder, manslaughter, and other criminal homicides as well as noncriminal killings. Murder is the crime of intentionally and unjustifiably killing another. <snip>

• Columbia Encyclopedia [3] Murder. Criminal homicide, usually distinguished from manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought. <snip>

• Columbia Encyclopedia [4] and Encyclopedia.com [5] Homicide. In law, the taking of human life. Homicides that are neither justifiable nor excusable are considered crimes. A criminal homicide committed with malice is known as murder, otherwise it is called manslaughter. <snip>

• Infoplease [6] and Encyclopedia.com [7]. Murder. Criminal homicide, usually distinguished from manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought. <snip>

• MSN Encarta [8]. Murder In criminal law, intentionally causing the death (homicide) of any person. <snip>

I have have shown links to all the encyclopedias on the Web and to eight dictionaries [9] that say that murder has to be legal. If anyone wants Wikipedia to say that murde is something other than this, they should give some references to encyclopediea or neutral sources that say murder can be legal or moral. Otherwise, Wikipedia will stand alone in making this claim. -- Norm2

I watch the Court TV show Forensic Files very often. This habit has vastly affected by philosiphy towards marriage. I also believe that marriage is obsolete from this philosiphy.

I have learned that marriage-oriented phenomenons have bottomed-out into murder. Some of which may be divorce, extramarital affairs, suspicious insurance policy purchases as a motive for money, etc. I have learned that divorce triggers a give-up of posssessions and money from one of the spouses.

The people who have affairs outside of marriage can sometimes cause an extramarital pregnancy which can be hard to manage, that event can bottom out into murder of a spouse. I don't people should get married anymore.

Should we make an article called Marrige-oriented murder since this phenomenon is somewhat common? --SuperDude 21:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really think manslaughter desires its own article, and certainly more than the one sentence it's given here. It is an entirely different charge, and isn't even technically murder (at least in the US). Anyone agree? -R. fiend 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see BDAbramson did an excellent job addressing this. Well done. -R. fiend 05:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, there are key differences between Homicide and Murder. Homicide is death caused by another person, such as through self-defense, or accidentally. Murder is death caused by another person through illegal means.

As far as this bit concerns murder, it seems wrong to me. Murder requires intent, not "illegal means," whatever that means. And the difference between homicide and murder is not, so far as I'm aware, one which exists only in the United States - it is a general common law distinction, at the very least. john k 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does attempted murder redirect here when there is no general mention of it in the article, except a brief mention in the section on Canada? john k 23:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Perhaps it should probably be its own article, since attempted murder has a huge number of interesting and unique aspects. For example, right now, the Supreme Court of California is considering the question of whether a person who shoots a bullet at one person and hits but does not kill another person can be convicted of attempted murder with regard to both persons. They just heard oral argument about a month ago at a special session in Redding.--Coolcaesar 15:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sections on murder in non-Western cultures? Surely China, Russia, Arab nations, and African nations deserve some mention here? Damn this fetish for Western culture. Ataru 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there are no sections on murder in non-Western cultures is the rather small number of English-speaking lawyers who actually understand both the languages and criminal statutes of the nations you mentioned. Because of such lawyers' rarity, they are in high demand (think of all the hapless Western tourists, executives, journalists, etc. rotting in jail in those countries) and therefore they don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia! Or if they have time to write on the side, it is much more profitable for their reputations to contribute to prestigious international law journals and magazines rather than Wikipedia.

Basically Wikipedia is the Rodney Dangerfield of the academic world --- it just can't get no respect. --Coolcaesar 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the statistics linked in the United States section of the article and the "almost half of murders are committed by a narrow social group of black males age 17 to 50" line is way out. I did the maths and they actually make up 28.4%, so I changed the line to "over a quarter of murders...".

That said, I'm not sure why this particular fact is here as it seems somewhat racially antagonistic, but I don't want to remove it without seeing what the wider Wikipedia community thinks. --Maelin 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 'Abortion' link from the see also page as it has no relation to murder other than the views of anti-abortionists. I have not found evidence that Abortion is classed as murder in any jurisdiction (even in Ireland, although that article needs some work). If there is evidence of Abortion being classed as murder please provide it on the abortion page - then I'd be happier to have link listed.-localzuk 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen this after reinserting the Abortion link. It DOES belong to the article, as it DOES match the definition of murder at the top of the article. RossNixon 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely reasonable to discuss abortion on a murder page but the above statement requires correction. Whether abortion matches the definition of murder depends, in each country, on whether the definition of the victim requires him or her to be a "separate" person. The continuum of liability may be described as abortion until the moment the umbilical is severed and a separate person is established, and then infanticide. Other countries treat the child en ventre sa mere as being a separate person for the purposes of acquiring legal rights and for the purposes of assault and, in the event of death, murder. Thus, for example, if the attacker thrusts a knife into the mother's abdomen, also wounding the foetus, is this one offence of wounding or two? If the mother subsequently gives premature birth but the baby dies because of its prematurity, is this a murder of the baby? The answers depend on the precise wording of the law in the relevant country and blanket assertions are unhelpful. David91 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]