We were having a debate in another thread, and an issue came up. What would it be classified as if someone knowingly caused a death, but causing that death was not their motivating factor? In other words, that person knew full well their actions would cause the death, but they did not necessarily want the victim to die, and they undertook those actions for other reasons. However, the actions and death were entirely premeditated, the perpetrator planned out the actions well in advance and knew with almost total certainty that it would cause a death to the victim. Can voluntary manslaughter ever be premeditated? Murder requires intent, but what exactly does "intent" mean, in this sort of situation? If one intends to cause the action that will certainly result in death, but one does not specifically intend the death, is that "intent to kill" ? Second and third degree murder are, by definition, not premeditated, so if it was a murder it would have to be first degree murder, in this situation. Examples to illustrate this hypothetical are really difficult, strained, and unrealistic. The example that got me thinking about this is a woman who is eight months pregnant and has a baby inside her. Because she is an addict, she takes high dosages of illegal drugs. The motivating reason for her to do this is for the psychedelic effect it will have on her mental state. However, it should also be obvious to her that taking such a high dose of illegal drugs would almost certainly kill the baby inside of her. She knows that the drugs will ultimately result in a death. This takes place over several months of her pregnancy, so it is certainly premeditated. Another unrealistic example, but a hypothetical to try to illustrate the concept. There is a robber trying to escape from a building. A guard has been knocked unconscious on the floor. (Let's say the guard was chasing the robber down a flight of stairs and accidentally tripped and fell, hit his head and went unconscious) The robber realizes that the only way to get away is to throw a tear gas grenade into the hallway, to prevent other guards from chasing after him. However, he also realizes that, in the fallen guard's unconscious state lying on the floor, the tear gas in the enclosed space of the hallway will very likely kill him. Would it still be reckless endangerment if it was a complete certainty of death, and perpetrator knew well in advance that their actions would cause this death? Can it be a reckless homicide if the perpetrator knew there was a 100% chance their actions would cause a death? (That doesn't seem merely just "reckless" to me) At what point does reckless homicide rise to the level of first degree murder? How about if their actions were not otherwise a crime? (The actions were only a crime because of the death it would cause) I'm having trouble thinking of any specific examples of this. What would this be categorized as?
After thinking about it some more, it seems to me that the difference between this situation and actual obvious murder is that it involves some degree of indirect separation between the action and the death. (i.e. If the perpetrator actually shot the victim with a gun, and that was the cause of the death, no one would doubt that was murder) Normally when there is such a separation between cause & effect it does not matter, because the perpetrator had a motivation to kill the victim. But when that motivation does not exist, it becomes much less clear.
That's not an excuse. There have been cases where addicts killed drug sellers to rob them of their drugs because they ran out of money. No one questions whether that is murder.
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make? Is it a defense when the person suffering from the so-called "disease" deliberately puts others in the path of harm for no reason other than the sake of their own comfort? Is it an affirmative defense against the commission of numerous felony offenses that apply to everyone equally?
