BMPL4009 Criminal Law
Reform of Homicide




Student Name: Md Ibrahim Khalil
Student ID: 2212007
Introduction
Homicide in modern England and Wales is governed by common law and related statutes (Tamsen, 2019). The two most common types of homicide are murder and manslaughter, with murder being the more serious since it involves planning and carrying it out. There hasn't been much change to the definitions of murder and manslaughter or the necessary mental condition since the 1700s. Concerns about ambiguity and injustice under this antiquated paradigm have prompted calls for a more progressive and uniform legal basis for murder. The Law Commission has seen the need for changes and has proposed modifications to rethink the foundations of the offences and clarify the rules.The current law governing Homicide in England and Wales
Common law ideas and legislation provide the basis for the present homicide law in England and Wales (MacDowell, 2021). Murder and manslaughter are the two primary classifications of homicide crime. Murder is the most heinous kind of homicide since it involves the deliberate and premeditated taking of another human life. Murder requires both the actus reus (the actual killing) and the mens rea (the specific purpose to kill). First-degree murder is the most severe kind of murder, whereas manslaughter is the least severe. Manslaughter is a homicide that does not include premeditation or malice on the part of the offender (Levy, 2021). There are two basic categories of manslaughter recognised by the law: voluntary and involuntary. Intentional killing to seriously hurt or provoke the victim is voluntary manslaughter. When someone dies due to someone else's extreme carelessness or recklessness but no malice was intended, this is called involuntary manslaughter.
Although modern murder legislation is the result of gradual evolution over many decades and centuries, several parts have remained substantially untouched since the seventeenth century. The Law Commission has made it clear that there is an urgent need to update these regulations (Combrade, 2019). The outdated difference between murder and manslaughter is a source of worry since it may lead to ambiguous results and a sense of unfairness. In cases when the defendant's mental condition is complicated or if mitigating circumstances exist, the existing law's reliance on the defendant's purpose or foresight of injury may not be sufficient. Furthermore, judges, juries, and legal practitioners may be confused by the law's murky and complicated distinctions between murder and manslaughter. According to what the Law Commission has said, a more up-to-date, reasonable, and consistent legal foundation for murder is required (Combrade, 2019). To achieve these goals, it may be necessary to examine the components of the offences, redefine the mens rea criteria, and provide clearer guidance.
Some of the key issues: are partial defences to murder, the controversy surrounding the intent required for murder, is the breadth of manslaughter too broad.
Homicide legislation in England and Wales needs updating after the Legislation Commission called it a "rickety structure set upon shaky foundations" in 2005. Some regulations haven't been updated since the seventeenth century, despite widespread agreement that they need modernization (Langmann, 2020). This demonstrates a stubborn refusal to adjust to the realities of the modern legal and social order. The presence of incomplete defences against murder is a major problem that calls for change. Manslaughter charges may now be reduced from murder on the grounds of provocation or lesser blame (Vaughan, 2022). However, there have been complaints that these defences are difficult to understand and use consistently. The public's faith in the criminal justice system is harmed as a result of this lack of clarity, which may lead to unfair decisions.
Another contentious element of homicide law is the level of intent that must be shown in order to convict someone of murder. Existing legal requirements, such as "malice aforethought," may be difficult to show in certain circumstances. It has been argued that this threshold is too strict and fails to account for the nuance of criminal action in the modern world (Stahl, 2019). Some have argued that the objective should be reevaluated so that it more accurately reflects the truth of murder cases and ensures fair and reasonable verdicts. In addition, many argue that the definition of manslaughter is too broad. The law defines several types of manslaughter, each with its own set of requirements and penalties. This complexity may cause prosecution and sentence to be unclear and inconsistent, further emphasising the need for reform.
The proposals that have been put forward by the Law Commission and other bodies
Many proposals have been made to improve the efficiency of the legal system and to solve a variety of legal challenges, from the Law Commission to other organisations (Brendel, 2020). Particularly interesting is the proposal to simplify and speed up processes in the criminal justice system. The Law Commission has proposed many reforms, including the use of technology to facilitate remote hearings, the elimination of delays resulting from mandatory personal appearances, and the improvement of case management effectiveness. The goals of these changes are to speed up the criminal case resolution process, lower expenses, and increase accessibility to the court system. Laws about new technologies are the topic of another proposal that seeks to update and modernise them. Legal frameworks that can successfully handle the legal and ethical concerns connected with technologies like AI, robots, and data protection are necessary as these fields continue to grow (Morse, 2021). The Law Commission has proposed new legislation and amendments to current laws to address uncertainties about responsibility, privacy, and intellectual property rights in the context of technological development.
Some have also advocated for changes to the legislation concerning divorce and parental rights. The Law Commission has called attention to the need of streamlining and expanding access to the system for resolving family conflicts, with a focus on the best interests of children (Miles, 2021). These ideas are meant to make family court procedures less heated, encourage peaceful resolutions to conflicts, and safeguard children's best interests. In addition, there has been debate about whether or not the laws against hate speech and cyberbullying need to be updated. The effect of online harassment on people and the proliferation of hate speech are issues of great concern in today's rapidly changing digital world. The Law Commission has suggested revising and amending the relevant laws to adequately address these concerns, finding a middle ground between the rights to free speech and protection against harmful and discriminatory conduct in the virtual sphere.
Why have the government accepted some reform proposals and rejected others? Were they right to do this?
Political reasons, practicality, public opinion, and the possible effect on diverse stakeholders may all play a role in determining whether a government accepts or rejects reform ideas. Reforms that are in line with a government's political agenda or party platform are more likely to be approved, since these measures may help governments win over voters and get them closer to their policy goals (Pastor, 2020). In addition, plans that are seen as practical and likely to provide the intended results have a better chance of being approved. To retain public confidence and solve problems that are of substantial concern to the people, governments may also take public opinion and popular demand into account when assessing reform ideas. The choice may also be influenced by how the proposed changes would affect various interest groups, corporations, and government agencies. The government may decide to reject a plan if the risks involved exceed the advantages.
The correctness of the government's acceptance or rejection of reform recommendations is debatable and situation-dependent. Understanding the government's decision-making process requires analysing the results and ramifications of both approved and rejected proposals. If the approved plans bring about desirable outcomes, solve critical problems, and improve the quality of life for everybody, then the government's action was justified (Pastor, 2020). Accepted improvements may be deemed faulty, though, if they have unanticipated repercussions or fall short of expectations. The government's choice to reject suggestions may also be criticised if such plans may have addressed major issues or benefitted the majority of the people.
The arguments against reform
Reform sceptics often provide a variety of justifications for their position. Firstly, the defence may be that the status quo, with all its flaws, has stood the test of time. They claim that implementing change will upset current procedures, leading to ambiguity or unforeseen effects (Siniscalchi, 2020). Furthermore, reform opponents may argue that the present system already sufficiently solves the highlighted concerns, therefore rendering the proposed modifications superfluous. They argue that making specific changes inside the current system is preferable to making sweeping, possibly disruptive changes. Secondly, the prospective expense and economic effect have been cited as reasons to oppose change. They claim that it may be expensive to put changes into action since doing so may need new expenditures or reallocations. They point out that the reform would put pressure on public funds or private companies, and they argue that this might cancel out any gains from the change (Siniscalchi, 2020). Those who are opposed to reform sometimes point to the possibility of disruptions or market uncertainty as more evidence for why the status quo should be maintained. Thirdly, critics of reform may question the viability of the alterations being suggested. They state that problems with bureaucratic inefficiency or unforeseen effects often plague reform endeavours. They may draw attention to previous instances in which identical changes had the opposite of the desired impact or had unintended consequences. Critics may urge policymakers to properly weigh the risks and advantages of proposed changes before moving forward, stressing the necessity of being cautious and basing decisions on data.
Conclusion
The Law Commission and other groups have recognised the obvious need for change in homicide laws in England and Wales. There are legitimate worries about the criminal justice system's impartiality, clarity, and public confidence due to outdated legislation, insufficient defences, and unclear differences between murder and manslaughter. The Law Commission has put out ideas to address concerns like hate speech and cyberbullying as well as to expedite procedures and adapt to technological advances in the court system for families. Recommendations for change are either accepted or rejected by the government based on several variables, such as political feasibility, practicality, public opinion, and stakeholder effect. Decision-makers should weigh the pros and drawbacks of each plan before making a final decision on whether or not to go forward with it.
References
Brendel, R.W. (2020). Legal Concerns in Psychosomatic Medicine. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 30(4), pp.663–676. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2007.07.010.
Combrade, B.-L. (2019). Is There a Law Commission in the UK? European Journal of Law Reform, 21(1), pp.44–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.5553/ejlr/138723702019021001005.
Laffont, J.-J. . (2021). The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), pp.1089–1127. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2937958.
Langmann, C. (2020). Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(12), pp.2303–2321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511433515.
Levy, S. (2021). Gross negligence manslaughter: Drawing the line: medical practitioners and manslaughter. Clinical Risk, 10(1), pp.31–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1258/135626204322756600.
MacDowell, D.M. (2021). Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators. Phoenix, 18(4), p.334. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1086369.
Miles, J. (2021). Marriage and Divorce in the Supreme Court and the Law Commission: for Love or Money? The Modern Law Review, 74(3), pp.430–455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00854.x.
Morse, B. (2021). Developing Legal Frameworks for Urban Aboriginal Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal, 67(5). doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3537320.
PastorL. (2020). Uncertainty about Government Policy and Stock Prices. The Journal of Finance, 67(4), pp.1219–1264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01746.x.
Siniscalchi, M. (2020). Dynamic choice under ambiguity. Theoretical Economics, 6(3), pp.379–421. doi:https://doi.org/10.3982/te571.
Stahl, B.C. (2019). Reflective Responsibility and Behavirour of Criminal. Philosophy of Management, 4(1), pp.13–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20044111.
Tamsen, F. (2019). Homicide Injury Quantification. Homicide Studies, 19(1), pp.88–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767914558142.
Vaughan, J. (2022). Manslaughter and preventable harm. Trends in Urology & Men’s Health, 6(4), pp.38–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/tre.474.