To be frank, it's difficult to believe 'gross negligence manslaughter' is the default term you normally use in lieu of other choices. Or that you were unable to think of other terms.
That one sounds fairly similar to manslaughter, no?
My understanding is that logically there's that basic framework of required specific intent, then there are a few crimes that allow prosecuting for negligence, then very few crimes with strict liability.
I'm originally not from US so I'm probably still getting used that the latter two categories are quite common in US law (and that strict liability is even possible).
Criminal Negligence/Manslaughter. You don't have to break a specific law, you just you have to be culpable in something that could foresee-ably have a reasonable chance for someone to be harmed.
The difference is the one between negligence and manslaughter. If your negligent actions result in something else down the line, you are still, in part, responsible.
There can, and usually is, more than 100% blame to go around.
"In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or [...].
"Many states do not define involuntary manslaughter, or define it vaguely in common-law terms. Some jurisdictions describe the amount of Negligence necessary to constitute manslaughter with terms such as criminal negligence, gross negligence, and culpable negligence. The only certainty that can be attached to these terms is that they require more than the ordinary negligence standard in a civil case. With this approach the state does not have to prove that the defendant was aware of the risk.
"Other jurisdictions apply more subjective tests, such as "reckless" or "wanton," to describe the amount of negligence needed to constitute involuntary manslaughter. In this approach the defendant must have personally appreciated a risk and then chosen to take it anyway.
What is the standard of reasonable care in these cases? What specific actions are necessary to demonstrate that reasonable care has been taken? What risk have the people in the article deliberately taken that is not also taken by the majority of parents?
I agree murder wouldn’t fit here (unfortunately), and I was speaking more in the context of negligence - there were definitively intentional things done that affected safety, with intent to either violate it or withhold information about it to third parties. Manslaughter definitively, but 'involuntary' I feel doesn't apply (nor does "voluntary manslaughter" because there wasn't that specific intent), which is why I'm going with "criminal negligence".
Specifically what I’m getting at is that they’d have a hard time claiming that they reasonably didn’t think any harm could happen given the context of what was said and done/not done.
Are involuntary manslaughter cases not usually predicated on some sort of negligence or other criminal activity on the part of the manslaughter? I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being punished for being the person in the wrong place when someone else decides to commit suicide by train or vehicle, for example.
If we take the comparison down a step (and into what I think is maybe a more comparable situation), I routinely see warnings in parking lots that they are not liable for stolen property or damage and imagine those are generally probably pretty accurate outside of, again, some negligence on the side of the business.
The Texas version requires recklessness, and I think that's met here.
reply