Talk:Murder/Archive 1

message: I removed a link to the article about George Bush from the "see also" section.  Funny, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--70.157.7.2 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above deletion was this edit.  I'm not sure I concur.  Seems to me that most of the day to day killings going on there are in fact murder, so should they be reflected in a demographics discussion.  Perhaps the references need to be more complete, facts checked etc, but the basic rationale for inclusion seems sound.LeadSongDog 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: On the other hand, causing death by jumping on
    a person's chest and head and firing over 10 times
    upon a person's torso have been considered to fulfill the standard.
Is this a joke, or an actual case ? If it's the latter, I suppose we need a source.
FiP Как вы думаете? 10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finland

message: Is! There! A! Reason! For! All! of! These!? -- this unsigned comment added by User:81.132.156.119 at 01:10, 25 September 2006
:That version of the page was vandalism. It has been reverted. -- Cameron Dewe 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclamation! Points!

message: State-by state information is needed, plus more info on different degrees of murder.  If it's too cumbersome to add state-by-state information within this page (which'd make sense, given the complexity of these laws and the amount of variance), a new page should be created.  Also, "Third-degree murder" redirects here, but there's no information on it, nor is there any on the "Felony murder" page.  Expanding wikipedia's coverage to a point where it is sufficient may take time, but will be worthwhile. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this page is already too long and mixes types of information in an unsatisfactory way. If it is proposed further to expand the information, country specialists should follow the example of the U.K. and produce a geographically limited page for their own jurisdiction. David91 06:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good call. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps separate articles about Murder in Juridiction are warranted. I know there are already categories for some countries but companion articles that discuss the law in each juridiction and relevant cases of murder might be useful. I also think the article about Murder in English law could be a separate article to one about Murder in England because the former deals with the development of the concept of Murder that many jurisdictions that are based on English common law use. -- Cameron Dewe 10:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the U.S. section

message: 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)
replies: text: Infanticide - Under s1 Infanticide Act 1938, the intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance represents an early form of diminished responsibility defence and needs reform to bring it into line with modern medical understanding, and
No source. Looks like somebody's opinion to me.
82.27.48.57 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The source identified would be s1 Infanticide Act 1938.  Citation should be clarified and wikified.LeadSongDog 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Infanticide]]

message: Murder#United_Kingdom:
:Infanticide - Under s1 Infanticide Act 1938, the intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance represents an early form of diminished responsibility defence and needs reform to bring it into line with modern medical understanding, and
No source. Looks like somebody's opinion to me.
82.27.48.57 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source identified would be s1 Infanticide Act 1938.  Citation should be clarified and wikified.LeadSongDog 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have heard two different versions of the concept:
# 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.
# "If you run down a drunk during the getaway, that's a murder." That has at several interpretations, corresponding to these specific examples:
## 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?
###I would believe yes. knoodelhed 11:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. And what about the situation where an offender commits a crime that results in the offender himself being killed, say in a hostage situation. Has the offender committed felony murder, of himself, because someone else killed him? He, of course, probably would not be charged with the crime, so it is unlikely to be tested in Court, but would it be counted as a felony murder, suicide or both? -- Cameron Dewe 10:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Findlaw speaks to this in their dictionary definitions of murder.  (caution- US POV implicit to Findlaw)LeadSongDog 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Felony murder]] statutes

message: 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)
thread_title: The [[United States]]

message: 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%
=== lebenslang (lifelong) ===
Lifelong actually is 30 years, if I´m not totally mistaken.  81.201.224.13 12:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Germany]]

message: Lifelong actually is 30 years, if I´m not totally mistaken.  81.201.224.13 12:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lebenslang (lifelong) 

message: 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.
This offence came into being in the 1920's because juries would not convict drivers of manslaughter.
:We had the same situation in the United States, so a separate type of manslaughter had to be created.  The American crime is "vehicular manslaughter."  The defendant is guilty if he was either driving with gross negligence or was committing an unlawful act (while driving), and as a result caused the death of a person with his vehicle.  Vehicular manslaughter includes a variety of forms of driving drunk, reckless driving (including speeding), and car insurance fraud (although the circumstances in some cases can occasionally justify a murder charge).  --Coolcaesar 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Moral Murder 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article needs re-writing and trimming

message: 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   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)
thread_title: Moral Killing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maritally-oriented murders 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see BD2412 did an excellent job addressing this. Well done. -R. fiend 05:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Manslaugter

message: 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)
thread_title:  Murder vs. Homicide 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  attempted murder 

message: 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)
thread_title:  United States 

message: "Femicide" is unique in the "See also" list in including mention of a subcategory. While the situation in Ciudad Juarez is disturbing, admitting this subcategory invites including a plethora of other subcategories, such as particularly notable massacres, etc. The link to the "Deaths in Ciudad Juarez" should be removed and integrated into the article on Femicide. Anyone willing to accomplish this? Myron 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: Femicide 

message: Hiiiii ross. =)
The whole "Other uses of the word" section is rather poor, and I don't really see what it adds to the article. Murder of crows is already referenced in the disambiguation page. For the time being, though, I thought we could take a look at your edit:
 Although "murder" is mostly used in the "legal" sense in this article, 
 many people believe that Capital Punishment and procuring or 
 performing an intentional Abortion are murders - regardless of 
 whetheror not these are judicially allowed by the law of any particular 
 country. This stance is often related to a religious worldview.
This is kind of a tricky subject. It just doesn't work for me as it stands, and I think it needs to be restated, carefully. How about something like this?
-----
"Murder" is sometime used in a political context to attach the ignominy of murder to a policy or act that is not murder in the legal sense. For example, pro-life advocates will at times state that "abortion is murder", and anti-death-penalty advocates will at times state that "capital punishment is murder". These two policies are cited most often, but killing of animals for fur, waging of war, and government policies that might indirectly cause death (for instance, allowing unsafe working conditions), have also been so characterized. 
Sometimes this represents a statement of belief: the advocate believes that the policy or act (e.g. abortion) ought to be classified as legal murder, but more generally it is anappeal to emotion: the advocate wishes to establish the repugnancy of a given policy by equating it with murder on a moral level.
---
Whew that's too long. I'm not nuts about it, really, what do you think ross? Herostratus 08:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks very well written to me. Thanks for making the effort! I don't really understand your use of "political" in the first line. Many people immediately think of politicians/parties/governments etc. I guess you meant this in some broader sense? Would another word fit? Societal? Or leave out "political context" altogether? RossNixon 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the explanation is pretty good, but how about "Murder" is sometimes used rhetorically, to attach… since Wikt:Rhetorical means "used as a means to persuade". Myron 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not "rhetorically", as this implies lound empty talk. This purpose as I see it is to "state an opinion that is strongly held", not necessarily to persuade. RossNixon 10:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, "rhetorical" nowadays has a pejorative connotation. By the way, it is neither necessary nor enlightening for the article to describe possible motives for using the term "murder" (such as hyperbolic, comic, political, polemical, pressing for criminalization, appealing to emotion, attention-grabbing, etc.). How about the following as succinct and non-judgmental? — "Murder" is sometime used to negatively characterize a policy or act that is not murder in the legal sense. Examples are: abortion, capital punishment, killing animals for fur, waging war, and government policies or commercial practices that might indirectly cause death (such as allowing unsafe working conditions). Myron 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other uses of the word" section 

message: I find it rather strange that despite men making up the largest demographic of murder victims, there is no link to an article on androcide (killing males). Stranger still, there isn't even an article on androcide!
Anyone feel like starting one? I would do it myself, but I'm not confident I would know where to begin. There are certainly lots of topical examples. Ratko Mladic springs to mind, who is wanted by the UN for murdering 10,000 people, including one massacre of 7,500 men and boys.
Thoughts anyone? MartinRobinson 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andocide is a relatively modern coinage, not having the more specific history of regicide, patricide, etc. which relate to the horror felt by male law makers when a male of particular legal status was killed. I suspect the reason why there is no page on androcide is that, in general terms, one male is very like another male and there is no sound legal reason for differenting a separate crime from the antithetical femicide. As to Mladic, he is charged with war crimes which have a specific legal definition. David91 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have thought that whether something has a specific legal definition or not would be a pre-requisite for having its own article. As far as I know, there is no legal definition for "femicide", "massacre", "deicide", etc, etc, which are all linked to. Specifically murdering 7,500 males is androcide - Mladic targeted them for being male, which happens in many conflicts, and he is being charged with directing their murders (among other things of course). As far as I'm aware, there is no catch-all "War Crime" that people are charged with. If a male is more likely to be murdered than a female, then I would have thought that being male would be a highly contributory factor in a murder concerning a male victim, and so would warrant a link to its own article. These are complex issues though, and this is the reason I felt a separate article would be appropriate (and also the reason why I wouldn't be up to starting this myself). MartinRobinson 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an example of mutual incomprehension so I will leave it to others to continue the discussion. David91 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Androcide 

message: By mentioning crimes against a fetus, the article seems to take a pro-life stance
Soulburglar 08:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the statute is quite well covered under its own article, which is linked, no other statute is quoted at length, there is no mention of its basis in case laws, it is really a side issue to this article.  This give an odd cast to the section, which Soulburglar probably misconstrued as POV.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US portion seems to side with "Pro-Life" POV 

message: I'm not sure the "degrees" section is factually accurate, particularly with regard to New York. Is there really an offense of third-degree murder in New York? If so, why has it never come up in the usually excellently-researched show Law and Order? And I'm also not convinced there was no offense of third-degree murder in some states before Furman v. Georgia.
The line about California is a little misleading; it's true that the only degrees of murder in California are first and second (plus there's also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide which I think is a civil rather than criminal matter). Capital murder, however, is called "first-degree murder with special circumstances" in California; the special circumstances are proved in the guilt phase of the trial rather than the penalty phase, so in effect they constitute a degree of murder above first (call it "zeroth-degree murder"?). --Trovatore 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder three in New York?

message: Since murder is an 'illegal act' the Holocaust article shouldn't say the mass murders were 'murders' but 'killings', as they weren't illegal within the Third Reich. I just want to see how far this goes and then decide if I'll take it to the Holocaust article, if it hasn't been done before I mean. Paulus Caesar 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably been discussed but... 

message: There is a lot of disagreement about various aspects of the Holocaust on its talk page, ranging from people claiming that "Nazi Germany was illegal" to that if contemporary Nazis kill Jews it is not necessarily murder.
In an attempt to at least get some consensus on which issues we agree on and which we disagree on, I've created a straw poll here. In order to be consistent, either both the definition of murder on this page and the article on Holocaust should allow for the killings to be called murder, or neither should. You comments will be appreciated.
- s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying there shouldn't be an entry in the dictionary for 'love' as there is no "uniform definition" for it. - s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get that? For one thing, WP's not a dictionary. For another, I certainly am not arguing for deletion of the murder article. All I'm saying is, on neither the murder article nor the one on the Holocaust do we need to give a definitive answer on whether the Holocaust was or was not murder, if the answer depends on which sense of the word you're using. (Now of course in any sense I would ordinarily use, it absolutely was murder, but that's orthogonal to the question at hand.) --Trovatore 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In a dictionary, if there are multiple definitions, then you list them. Occasionally you may indicate that one or another usage is considered inferior, but you don't ordinarily single out one as the "real" definition. The sense of the word in which the Holocaust may not have been murder is the sense defined by Nazi law. As I say, I don't actually know whether it was murder according to Nazi law—it's entirely possible that it was; if you watch The Wanansee Conference or its English remake Conspiracy, you realize that the Germans of the time were strong legal realists and worried about this sort of thing, and whether they ever got around to actually making it legal according to their own standards I don't know. --Trovatore 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would mean it was not murder according to Nazi law. It would not imply that it wasn't murder according to moral law, or international law. You still seem to be insisting that there must be a single answer to whether something is murder, and there just isn't, until it's agreed what sense of the word "murder" you're using. --Trovatore 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Holocaust murder? 

message: What are the statutes for perjury and falsifying evidence on the state's side in cases involving the death penalty? As such a person is using the state itself as a murder weapon, I pressume some states have harsh retaliations for such efforts. Since I have nothing to cite, I bringing the matter here to discuss.--Nuke-Marine 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a Google search on "capital perjury".  Seems it's on the books in California. In practice, though, states hardly ever admit they've executed an innocent person, which I suppose they'd have to do to bring such a case. --Trovatore 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Capital perjury," I think, refers to the penalty of death for committing perjury in a capital case.  To pass muster under the Eighth Amendment, I should think that the statute would have to include an element that the perjury cause the defendant to be convicted of a capital crime.  California appears to include death as a penalty for "willful perjury or subornation of perjury" by which the defendant "procures the conviction and execution of any person."   CPC 128.  An element of the statute is the execution, which means that before the perjurer could be prosecuted the state would have to carry out the execution.  Since California's death penalty appeals take so long, I'd imagine successful prosecutions for capital perjury in California would be rare indeed.  ---Axios023 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perjury in Death Penalty Cases 

message: genocide is not a type of legalized killing.  this contradicts the geneva articles on wiki.  at least since 1948 this is the case, from the UN perspective at any rate.  perhaps something like, "State-sponsored killing campaigns, such as genocide, although perhaps legalized by the sovereign conducting the said genocide, are not legal according to the Geneva Conventions (reference needed).  There is disagreement however, as to whether all acts that have been deemed genocide by the world community, do in fact violate international law as described by The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ... "
(Previous unsigned)
:Where is the disagreement?  Is this an accusation agaings the International Court of Justice or something else?LeadSongDog 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  legalized killing 

message: I deleted the sentence "Some developed countries countries have murder rates higher than the US with Belgium at a per capita murder rate of 9.1", because the number for Belgium is incorrect. It is based on statistics of the federal governement that not only include murder and manslaughter, but also the unsuccessfull attempts to do so. Furthermore the number is based on a population of 10 million, although there are half a million more. The actual number of murders thus is much lower, but there are no actual figures to my knowledge. -- unsigned
:Many reputable criminal statistics researchers warn that the comparison of crime statistics between countries is often problematic and should be done with great caution. The crimes included in the statistics, the way they are recorded and counted, and the normalising statistics are all often different. Your explanation is a classic example of the problem. -- Cameron Dewe 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder demographics 

message: I search for the article on autospy and found nothing -- at least with that name.  This is very odd.  I would assume that someone could build an article on autospies.  I would formally request it, but that process requires the requestor to include sources.  I would have those only if I were in the medical industry.  I am not. Will 01:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you maybe want autopsy, or are you looking for silicon 007s? --Trovatore 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A See Also link in the various criminal pages like homicide, manslaughter, and murder might help to. Will 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no article for [[Autospy]].  Why not? 

message: The Viking section is fun, but it doesn't really fit into the article. Perhaps it should be moved to an article about Viking laws or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.55.101 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove viking section 

message: In the second sentence of the article it is stated that "The penalty for murder is usually life imprisonment,".
I don't know if this is the case in the US, but I think that a word as "usually" is unjustified in a general article on murder.
I think the sentence should be altered or (if I am mistaken and it really IS the "standard" punishment for murder on a global scale) have a reference to some sort of statistics or whatever backing this claim. Rasmuskold 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well saying "usually" is incorect, especially if we want to give a "globalized" view of murder. –Esurnir 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The penalty for murder 

message: If a person is, legally, dead, for any reason you can think up...can you actually kill that person?
If he or she is already dead, it can't be murder...can't even be hmoicide. At most, it could be called
defiling a corpse, in some way. Any thoughts? DannyBoy2k 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you kill a 'dead' person? 

message: The article states that in New York, "Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances."  However, NYS Penal Law says, Second degree murder is, "With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;"  Where does the premeditation from the wiki article come in, just intent and a death is needed, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.26.220 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect about New York law? 

message: Removed from the article:
:The word 'Murder' is believed to have derived from a practice of the Normans shortly after their invasion of England.  There was a presumption that every dead body found was a Norman body unless it could be proven to be English.  If the dead body was not proven to be English, a fine was levied which was known as a 'Murdrum', from which the word 'Murder' is derived.http://www.coroner.org.uk/public/history.asp
Contradicted by the American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, which say it goes back to Old English morþor. Latin murdrum seems to be a loanword from Germanic rather than vice versa. --Ptcamn 12:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethought.  Malice aforethought includes intentional killing (express malice) and reckless killings (implied malice).  Unless there is some objection to changing the definition it should be changed.  Veniceslug1 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Wrong 

message: The Rolling Stone Magazine printed an article that accused Jerry Lee lewis of murdering one of his wives. If you know which issue it was in, will you please post it for me. Also any other info on the aforementioned subject would be appreciated. Phuckit 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that your question is not particularly relevant to this article. It would be relevant, assuming that issue of Rolling Stone actually exists and can be located, at Jerry Lee Lewis. --Trovatore 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he do it ?? 

message: I have made a requested edit to this article.  But now I think it should be renamed.  Can someone do this for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  68.214.74.32  (talk • contribs)  16:39, 2 June 2007  (UTC)
:Not gonna happen -- this article is about murder, not homicide. There's a separate article on homicide. I have reverted your change. --Trovatore 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the difference needs to be well explained in the article. There is no reference to homicide in the article. To many, murder and homicide are quite similar terms, with murder being a subset of homicide. To confuse matters, some jurisdictions and researchers use the term intentional homicide instead of murder. The differences in legislation between jurisdictions also confuses the issue. Also homicide is not always a crime as it may be justified in some circumstances. -- Cameron Dewe 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that's a good idea, but with care to avoid focusing too narrowly on any one usage of the term "murder" (for example, the legal usage) to the exclusion of others (say, moral). Your current text about "intent and lack of mitigation" is probably accurate for both, but has a legalistic cast to it. I'm not sure just how to improve it, but it seems that there should be some warning, early on, that this is not exclusively a legal concept. --Trovatore 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if it was put in the introduction? -- Cameron Dewe 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In what jurisdiction(s) is murder NOT a subset of homicide?LeadSongDog 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None.  The article should not be renamed, of course.  This is trolling, and do not feed the trolls. Bearian 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please rename article