manslaughter

The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

When a person killed someone through negligence (the example in the Bible is of a man who was chopping wood and the head of the ax flew off and killed someone, the implication being that he was negligent in chopping when there were other people in the vicinity) he was forced to take Asylum in one of the cities of refuge set up throughout Canaan, and had to remain there until the death of the High Priest, at which time he became free. If he ventured outside the city of refuge before that time, the immediate relatives of the person he killed had the right to kill him (see Blood Avenger).

Where the killing was an act of criminal negligence or homicide, the culprit was denied entry to the cities of refuge, and would thus effectively have to remain a fugitive from the immediate relatives of the person whom he had killed.

The rabbis of the Talmud debated about how to distinguish between manslaughter and homicide, and offered two basic guidelines: a) the instrument which caused the death should be examined to ascertain if it was liable to cause death; and b) the relations between the victim and the one who killed him should be investigated. Should the instrument be one that could reasonably be assumed to cause death, as, for example, a knife, this would indicate that there was premeditation rather than manslaughter, especially if the victim had been struck in a vital organ. Similarly, if there was known enmity between the two, the presumption would be that it was a case of homicide rather than manslaughter (Maim., Hilkhot Rotse'aḥ, 3).

In the past few centuries, various Responsa have discussed the question of how a person who has committed manslaughter must atone. It is suggested that the person must do penance, give charity, and attempt to help the family of the victim.

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.

At common law, as well as under current statutes, the offense can be either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The main difference between the two is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter. Some states have abandoned the use of adjectives to describe different forms of the offense and, instead, simply divide the offense into varying degrees.

Voluntary Manslaughter

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.

Certain forms of provocation that frequently arise have traditionally been considered reasonable or unreasonable by the courts. A killing that results from anger that is induced by a violent blow with a fist or weapon might constitute sufficient provocation, provided the accused did not incite the victim. It is not reasonable, however, to respond similarly to a light blow. A killing that results from mutual combat is often considered manslaughter, provided it was caused by the heat of passion aroused by the combat. An illegal arrest of one who knows of or believes in his or her innocence may provoke a reasonable person, although cases are in dispute on the issue of whether such an arrest would justify a killing. An attempt to make a legal arrest in an unlawful manner by the use of unnecessary violence might also constitute a heat of passion killing that will mitigate an intentional killing. Some cases have held that a reasonable belief that one's spouse is committing adultery will suffice. An injury to persons in a close relationship to the accused, such as a spouse, child, or parent, is often held to constitute reasonable provocation, particularly when the injury occurs in the accused's presence.

Mere words or gestures, although extremely offensive and insulting, have traditionally been viewed as insufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter. There is, however, a modern trend in some courts to hold that words alone will suffice under certain circumstances, such as instances in which a present intent and ability to cause harm is demonstrated.

The reasonable person standard is generally applied in a purely objective manner. Unusual mental or physical characteristics are not taken into consideration. The fact that a defendant was more susceptible to provocation than an average person because he or she had a previous head injury is not relevant to a determination of whether the person's conduct was reasonable. There has, however, been a recent trend in some cases that indicates a willingness to consider some subjective factors.

If a reasonable period of time passed between the provocation and the killing so that the defendant had sufficient time to cool off, a homicide will not be reduced to manslaughter. Most courts will reduce the charge if a reasonable person would not have cooled off. Some, however, look solely at the defendant's temperament and make a subjective decision as to whether the person had sufficient time to regain self-control.

In some states, there is a case-law trend in which a killing that is committed under a mistaken belief that one is justified constitutes voluntary manslaughter. It is reasoned that although the crime is not justifiable, it is not serious enough to be murder.

It is a general rule that a defendant who acts in self-defense may only use force that is reasonably calculated to prevent harm to himself or herself. If the person honestly, but unreasonably, believes deadly force is necessary and, therefore, causes another's death, some courts will consider the crime voluntary manslaughter. Similarly when a defendant acts under an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she has a right to kill another to prevent a felony, some courts will find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Although it is generally considered a crime to kill another in order to save oneself, the justification of coercion or necessity may, likewise, reduce murder to manslaughter in some jurisdictions.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act, or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

Generally there are two types of involuntary manslaughter: (1) criminal-negligence manslaughter; and (2) unlawful-act manslaughter. The first occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness, and the second occurs when death is caused by one who commits or attempts to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor.

Although all jurisdictions punish involuntary manslaughter, the statutes vary somewhat. In some states, the criminal negligence type of manslaughter is described as gross negligence or culpable negligence. Others divide the entire offense of manslaughter into degrees, with voluntary manslaughter constituting a more serious offense and carrying a heavier penalty than involuntary manslaughter.

Many statutes do not define the offense or define it vaguely in common-law terms. There are, however, a small number of modern statutes that are more specific. Under one such statute, the offense is defined as the commission of a lawful act without proper caution or requisite skill, in which one unguardedly or undesignedly kills another, or the commission of an unlawful act that is not felonious or tends to inflict great bodily harm.

Criminally Negligent Manslaughter

A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether or not the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide.

There are numerous cases in which an omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of a duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, an ensuing death from failure to act would not be manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission in which one has a duty, such as the failure of a lifeguard to attempt to save a drowning person, might constitute the offense.

When the failure to act is reckless or negligent, and not intentional, it is usually manslaughter. If the omission is intentional and death is likely or substantially likely to result, the offense might be murder. When neither an intent to kill nor recklessness or negligence are present, no offense is committed.

In many jurisdictions, death that results from the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner is punishable as a separate offense. Usually it is considered a less severe crime than involuntary manslaughter. Although criminal negligence is an element, it is generally not the same degree of negligence as that which is required for involuntary manslaughter. For example, some vehicular homicide statutes have been construed to require only ordinary negligence while, in a majority of jurisdictions, a greater degree of negligence is required for involuntary manslaughter.

Unlawful-Act Manslaughter

In many states, unlawful-act manslaughter is committed when death results from an act that is likely to cause death or serious physical harm to another person. In a majority of jurisdictions, however, the offense is committed when death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor.

In some states, a distinction is made between conduct that is malum in se, bad in itself, and conduct that is malum prohibitum, bad because prohibited by law. In these states, the act that causes the death must be malum in se and a felony in order for the offense to constitute manslaughter. If the act is malum prohibitum, there is no manslaughter unless it was foreseeable that death would be a direct result of the act. In other states that similarly divide the offense, the crime is committed even though the act was malum prohibitum and a misdemeanor, especially if the unlawful act was in violation of a statute that was intended to prevent injury to other persons.

Punishment

The penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment. The precise term of years depends upon the applicable statute. Usually the sentence that is imposed for voluntary manslaughter is greater than that given for involuntary manslaughter. In most states, a more serious penalty is imposed for criminally negligent manslaughter than for unlawful-act manslaughter.

The unlawful killing of a person, without malice or premeditation. Involuntary manslaughter is accidental, such as running into someone with a car. Voluntary manslaughter is committed in the “heat of passion,” as in a spontaneous fight in which one person is killed by a strong blow. Manslaughter is usually considered less serious than murder. Both murder and manslaughter are types of homicide.

For other uses, see Manslaughter (disambiguation).

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2007)

Homicide   Murder Note: Varies by jurisdiction Assassination · Child murder Consensual homicide Contract killing · Honour killing Human sacrifice Lust murder · Lynching Mass murder · Murder-suicide Proxy murder  · Lonely hearts killer Serial killer · Spree killer Torture murder · Feticide Double murder  · Misdemeanor murder Crime of passion  · Internet homicide Manslaughter in English law Negligent homicide Vehicular homicide Non-criminal homicide Note: Varies by jurisdiction Justifiable homicide Capital punishment Human sacrifice Feticide By victim or victims Suicide Family Familicide · Avunculicide Prolicide (Filicide • Infanticide • Neonaticide) Fratricide / Sororicide Mariticide / Uxoricide Parricide (Matricide • Patricide) Other Genocide / Democide Gendercide Omnicide Regicide / Tyrannicide v • d • e

Criminal law Part of the common law series Elements Actus reus · Mens rea Causation · Concurrence Scope of Criminal Liability Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious Inchoate offenses Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation Crimes against people Assault · Battery False imprisonment · Kidnapping Mayhem · Sexual assault Homicide Crimes Murder · Felony murder Manslaughter Negligent homicide Vehicular homicide Crimes against property Arson · Blackmail · Burglary Embezzlement · Extortion False pretenses · Larceny Receiving stolen property Robbery · Theft Crimes against justice Compounding · Misprision Obstruction · Perjury Malfeasance in office Perverting the course of justice Defenses to Liability Defense of: (Self · Others · Property) Consent · Diminished capacity Duress · Entrapment · Ignorance Infancy · Insanity · Intoxication Justification · Mistake (Fact · Law) Necessity · Provocation Other common law areas Contracts · Evidence · Property Torts · Wills, trusts and estates Portals Criminal justice · Law v • d • e

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Contents 1 Voluntary manslaughter 1.1 American Law 1.2 English Law 1.2.1 Diminished Responsibility 1.2.2 Provocation 1.2.3 Suicide Pacts 1.3 Infanticide 2 Involuntary manslaughter 2.1 Constructive Manslaughter 2.1.1 American Law 2.1.2 English Law 2.2 Criminally negligent manslaughter 2.2.1 American Law 2.2.2 English Law 2.3 Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter 2.4 Assisted suicide 3 See also 4 References

Voluntary manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause really serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce his culpability. Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation, however others have been added in various jurisdictions.

American Law

There have been many types of voluntary manslaughter, which have not been differentiated because they are so closely related or indistinguishable that many jurisdictions don't differentiate between them.^[1] The following are some examples of defences which may be raised to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter:

• Provocation: A killing occurred after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose control.
• Imperfect self-defense: allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the U.S. Self-defence is generally a complete defence to murder. However, if a person acted in an honest but unreasonable belief that he can justifiably resort to a deadly force to defend himself, he may still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation.
• Diminished capacity or a mental breakdown can be a defence to negate the mental state of "malice". If a jurisdiction recognizes that a person can kill with justification, but also without any evil intent, that jurisdiction is free to define the crime as something less than murder. Not all US states do this; in many, a mental defect, or even mental illness, won't reduce the seriousness of the offense whatsoever. However, if a US state legislature chooses, a diminished mental state may justify the finding of a lesser crime. This is distinguished from the complete defence of Insanity.

English Law

Main article: Manslaughter_in_English_law#Voluntary_Manslaughter

The Homicide Act 1957 sets out three partial defences that reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter; diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact.

Diminished Responsibility

This covers diminished mental responsibility for a crime falling short of the requirements of the complete defence of Insanity. Under s 2 Homicide Act 1957 there are three requirements for the defendant to raise the defence of diminished responsibility:

• The defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind at the time of the killing. An abnormality of mind is ‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’.^[2]
• The abnormality was caused by one of the causes specified by the Act: a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent cause or a disease or injury.
• The abnormality substantially impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility for the killing. Substantial means the lack of control must simply be ‘more than trivial’.^[3]

Under s2(2) of the Act it is for the defendant to prove he suffered from such a condition on the balance of probabilities.

Provocation

Provocation was originally a common law defence to murder, but it was reformed by s3 Homicide Act 1957. There are two limbs to the defence, first the defendant must have actually been provoked, and second the provocation must be such as would have made the reasonable man act as the defendant did. Provocation can come from someone other than the victim^[4] and be aimed at someone other than the accused.^[5] Further the defence is not defeated by the fact that the defendant induced the provocation.^[6]

• Subjective limb: provocation in fact: This is a question of fact for the jury. The loss of control must be sudden and temporary,^[7] however it can be the result of slow burn with a relatively minor ‘final straw’.
• Objective limb: the reasonable man test: The provocation must been enough to make a reasonable man do as the defendant did. The reasonable man has the same sex and age as the defendant and such characteristics as affect the gravity of the provocation to the defendant, but characteristics irrelevant to the provocation such as unrelated mental disorders are not given to the reasonable man.^[8] Finally, the reasonable man always has reasonable powers of self control ^[9] and is never intoxicated.^[10]

Suicide Pacts

S4(1) Homicide Act 1957 introduced the defence of suicide pact. Parliament's intention in was to show some compassion for those who had been involved in a suicide pact but failed to die. S4(3) defines a suicide pact as ‘a common agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take his own life’. The accused must have had a "settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact" to avoid him entering into a supposed pact with the real intention of committing murder.

Infanticide

Another form of voluntary manslaughter is infanticide. This offense was created by statute in some countries during the 20th century. Generally, a conviction of infanticide will be made where the court is satisfied that a mother killed her newborn child while the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of childbirth; for instance, in cases of post-natal depression. It is a form of manslaughter, and carries the same range of sentences as a manslaughter conviction. While infanticide is a separate offense from murder, and not a reductive defence to murder (such as the defences listed below), in practice it works in much the same way as a reductive defence.

Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

Constructive Manslaughter

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

For example, if a person throws a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below they could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury^[11]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act.

American Law

In the United States, misdemeanor manslaughter is a lesser version of felony murder, and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanor – that is, a violation of law which doesn't rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction for the homicide, if the misdemeanor involved a law designed to protect human life. Many violations of safety laws are infractions, which means a person can be convicted regardless of mens rea.

English Law

Main article: Manslaughter in English law#Unlawful act manslaughter

Constructive manslaughter in English Law is committing an unlawful dangerous act which causes death. The associated doctrine of constructive murder, under which killing in the course of committing a felony led to a charge of murder, was abolished by the Homicide Act 1957.

There are three requirements for constructive manslaughter:

• The defendant must do an unlawful act. This must be a criminal, not civil, offence^[12] and must involve mens rea of intention or recklessness. Crimes involving negligence or omission will not suffice.^[13].
• The act must be dangerous. Whether the act is dangerous is objectively judged from the point of view of a sober and reasonable person present at the scene who witnessed the act.^[14] The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous^[15] and the act need not be directed at the victim.^[16]
• The act must cause the death of the victim.

Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).

American Law

In jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, if a person is so reckless as to "manifest extreme indifference to human life", the defendant may be guilty of aggravated assault as well as of involuntary manslaughter.^[17]

In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to willful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder.

English Law

Main article: Manslaughter in English law#Manslaughter by gross negligence

In English law gross negligence is the test for manslaughter. The crime was defined in R v Bateman as 'to show such disregard for life and the safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment.^[18] In R v Adomako the House of Lords affirmed R v Bateman, and set out the five elements required for negligence:

• A duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim.
• A breach of that duty.
• A risk that the defendant's conduct could cause death.^[19]
• Evidence that the breach of duty caused the victim's death.
• The defendant fell so far below the standards of the reasonable man in that situation that he should be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment.

It is for the jury to decide what constitutes 'grossly negligent behaviour'.

Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter

Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds people liable for any death which occurs because of criminal negligence, or a violation of traffic safety laws. A common use of the vehicular manslaughter laws involves prosecution for a death caused by driving under the influence (determined by excessive blood alcohol content levels set by individual states), although an independent infraction (such as driving with a suspended driver's license), or negligence, is usually also required.^[20]

In some U.S. states, such as Texas, intoxication manslaughter is a distinctly defined offense. A person commits intoxication manslaughter if he, or she, operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride while intoxicated and, by reason of that intoxication, causes the death of another by accident or mistake.^[21]

Intoxication manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter and other similar offenses require a lesser mens rea than other manslaughter offenses. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant is entitled to use the alcohol, controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, or other substance, is no defense.^[22] For example, in Texas, to prove intoxication manslaughter, it is not necessary to prove the person was negligent in causing the death of another, nor that they unlawfully used the substance that intoxicated them, but only that they were intoxicated, and operated a motor vehicle, and someone died as a result. The same rule of law applies in New York for vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.^[23]

Assisted suicide

In some U.S. states, assisted suicide is punishable as a second degree of manslaughter.^[24]

See also

• Culpable homicide
• Imperfect self-defense
• Murder
• Criminal transmission of HIV
• Depraved heart murder
• Manslaughter in English law

References

1. ^ See, e.g., Manslaughter in the first degree, N.Y. State Penal Law section 125.20, found at N.Y. State Legislative web site (search for Penal Law § 125.20).
2. ^ Lord Parker CJ in R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
3. ^ R v Lloyd [1967] 1 Q.B. 175 at 177
4. ^ R v Davies [1975] QB 691
5. ^ R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193
6. ^ Edwards v R [1973] AC 648
7. ^ R v Duffy [1946] 1 All ER 932n
8. ^ A-G for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, as affirmed in R v James and Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14
9. ^ R v Lesbini [1914] 3 KB 1116
10. ^ R v Newell (1980) 71 Cr App R 331
11. ^ [1977] AC 500
12. ^ R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163
13. ^ Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576, R v Lowe [1973] QB 702
14. ^ R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
15. ^ DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500
16. ^ AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 WLR 421
17. ^ 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702
18. ^ R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
19. ^ R v Singh (Gurphal) [1999] Crim LR 582
20. ^ See, e.g., Vehicular Manslaughter in the first degree, N.Y. State Penal Law section 125.13 found at N.Y. State Legislative web site (search for Penal Law § 125.13).
21. ^ Tex. Penal Code § 49.08.
22. ^ TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 49.10; see also Nelson v. State, 149 S.W.3d 206, 211 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).
23. ^ See, Vehicular Manslaughter in the second degree, N.Y. State Penal Law section 125.12 found at N.Y. State Legislative web site (search for Penal Law § 125.12).
24. ^ See, e.g., Manslaughter in the second degree, N.Y. State Penal Law section 125.15 found at N.Y. State Legislative web site (search for Penal Law § 125.15).

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - drab, manddrab

Nederlands (Dutch)
doodslag

Français (French)
n. - (Jur) homicide involontaire

Deutsch (German)
n. - Totschlag

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - (νομ.) ανθρωποκτονία εξ αμελείας

Italiano (Italian)
omicidio colposo

Português (Portuguese)
n. - homicídio culposo (m) (Jur.)

Русский (Russian)
человекоубийство, непредумышленное убийство

Español (Spanish)
n. - homicidio involuntario

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - dråp

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
杀人, 一般杀人罪

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 殺人, 一般殺人罪

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 과실치사

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 殺人, 故殺

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) قتل غير متعمد‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮הריגת אדם‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.