Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> John W. wrote:
> 
>>Raj Feridun <rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp> wrote in message news:<pc7fg0tlbm1v22kh5hcnrl2oc4q8ssp6on@4ax.com>...
>>
>>
>>>Yes, unfortunately this is the tragic state of the Japanese penal
>>>codes.
>>>
>>>I guess my point is that even if a grown man "accidentally" killed his
>>>5 year old by slamming his head into the floor that there should be a
>>>more severe sentence than 5 years as a result. As for murder throw
>>>away the key.
>>>
>>
>>Isn't there something in the law that says a normal person should
>>understand that their action will result in injury or death? Only an
>>idiot thinks throwing a kid to the floor won't at the very least hurt
>>him.
> 
> 
> Sure. Look up "mens rea" some time. To be criminally culpable for
> something, you generally have to be aware that your behaviour is
> wrongful. 

No, no, no. Mens rea has nothing to do with knowing that your behavior 
is wrong. Mens rea is simply intent to commit the criminal act. Knowing 
that one's behavior is wrongful is only relevant when not knowing 
whether the behavior is wrongful is the result of a mental disease or 
defect. As most first-year law students know, ignorance of whether or 
not an act is prohibited is not a defense and has nothing to do with 
mens rea. Mens rea is intent to commit the act, not intent to commit an 
illegal/wrongful act.

Latin words are tricky, aren't they?

> You don't necessarily have to be aware of the exact
> consequence, though. If you expected your wrongful action to be an
> assault, and it resulted in death, you would still be criminally
> culpable for the death. 

An assault can not result in a death. Neither can a battery, as a 
battery that results in death would merge into one of the homicide 
offenses depending on the MENS REA. I think the relevant California case 
on this application of the merger doctrine is _People v. Wilson_.

> "Reckless disregard" gets tangled up in this
> too. If you threw a stick of dynamite at a building, and someone died in
> the ensuing explosion, it doesn't matter if you didn't mean to kill
> anyone: any reasonable person would understand that throwing dynamite
> into a building is a wrongful act that presents a substantial danger to
> people.

Omit "wrongful act". The fancy common law term for this is 
"depraved-heart murder."

> The issues for this kind of thing in the US involve the particular laws
> of the state you are in. As you poke around the various manslaughter and
> murder statutes, you find varying degrees of having to prove different
> levels of intent and recklessness. 

Hmm. What's the difference between intent and recklessness?

> It is difficult to prove beyond a
> shadow of reasonable doubt 

Omit "shadow."

> that the father didn't just have a momentary
> lapse of control, was not under extreme emotional distress, and acted
> with the kind of calm, deliberate behaviour that tends to receive stiff
> murder penalties. These kind of cases tend to be treated as variations
> of unintentional homicide and reckless manslaughter.

Is "reckless manslaughter" an offense in California? There is no such 
crime at common law.

> You also need to keep in mind that Japan is not a common law country,
> and its legal system is different from the US.

Learning about the US legal system, are we?

> KWW

Ta ta,
K