Do you think that someone who killed someone accidentally should go to jail for murder?

If in fact the killing was accidental, there are determining factors as to what the punishment will be. Consider that the person in Senario 3 was drinking..they are responsible for their actions... they knew they shouldn't drive but they did. Should they go to jail? I guess it depends on their record.. were they caught drinking before?

Senario 2, yes that person deserves to go to prison. As for rehabilitation... I'm all for it. But they can get rehab in prison.

Senario 1 When a person picks up a gun, they should always assume the gun is loaded.. that way there could be no accident. Age would also be a determining factor here. Was it a young child.. 10 or under? If so then the parent is at fault..If it's a teenager, they should never have picked up the gun in the first place. Guns are never a joke.. teenagers know this.

In answer to your simple question.. all of them are just as much at fault.

Homicide is the killing of another person caused by the defendant. If the person dies, as a result of what you did, then it's homicide. Murder is just one type of homicide.

There are many different types of homicide, with different jail senteces, based on the level of fault.

Murder is homicide that is performed with malice, either the specific intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm, or depraved indifference (reckless regard of risk) for human life. Both scenario #1 and #2 show reckless disgreard for human life. The person knew they were holding a gun, and knew that guns could cause serious injury, and still they point it at another person. They consciously disrearged the risk that the gun might fire, and that's depraved indifference.

Negligent homicide (also sometimes called involuntary manslaughter) is what someone could be charged with if they kill another person accidentally, without malice. Scenario three is a potential example of negligent homicide, depending upon other factors.

It might also be Manslaughter, which is when someone acts with depraved indifference because they are drunk or otherwise have diminished capacity, or when the action is provoked ("heat of passion" or duress).

The US makes no serious effort at rehabilitation in it's prison systems. The majority of people in our prisons are not career criminals. They are people in prison for tax evasion, drunk driving, child support, doing strange things. My favorite is the Bounty hunter who while attempting to arrest a fugitive was covering a man he found with the fugitive. The dude happened to be an FBI agent. The Fed identifed himself as an FBI agent, the bounty hunter said "yeah right I'm an FBI agent too". That was "impersonation of a federal agent" enough to get the guy a couple years in Federal prison.

Assault with a Christmas tree, people who slug cops, people caught for small time drug distrabution and so on. %10 of all State prison inmates in 2002 were in for burgalry. %7.1 for public order offenses. %21 for drug offenses.

As for your question, I think you are using a poor example. All guns are loaded even if you unload it yourself. That is the first rule of gun safety. The second rule of gun safety is NEVER point a gun at somebody unless you intend to use it. Sober or drunk this guy voilated the most basic concepts of gun safety. This makes him negligent.

The key thing for me and I don't mean to sound like a lawyer is whether or not negligence was shown. A person with good intentions who attempts CPR but botches it very badly and instead kills the person should not be charged with a crime. A person who opens a door and knocks another person they could not see down the stairs should not be charged with a crime. Pointing a weapon at somebody is different. That's negligence. That is disreguard for another person's safety. Whether it be a bow and arrow, whether it be a knife that the other person stepped into by accident. So a manslaughter charge would be appropriate in circumstances like that. Manslaughter often carries probation for folks with a clean record.

Then there is gross negligence. For example a plant manager who knows something is unsafe but fails to correct it in a timely mannor. When a plant worker dies because of that plant manager's negligence I think that should be 2nd degree murder. When a worker is off reading a magazine instead of watching the readings at a refinery and it blows killing a dozen workers. That should be first degree murder in my opinion. They knew they were dealing with a dangerous situation and the results of failing to do thier job but allowed themselves to be distracted.

With traffic laws it's a little fuzzy. Running a red light is dangerous but people can do it hundreds of times before finally plowing into somebody, others kill or get killed the first time they do it. Some behavior is perfectly safe UNTIL a wildcard is thrown into the situations. For example a guy doing 20 over the speed limit suddenly has a car veer into the lane in front of him. The speeding was not a factor in the accident as suddenly is suddenly. The extra split second that doing the speed limit would have given the driver is meaningless. Or for example a car on a wet road then changing to a new pavement type which caused them to lose control. That's an unavoidable accident. Falling asleep at the wheel though is involentary. It would depend greatly on circumstances whether there was real blame to put on the driver's head. Fatigue can also decrease mental acuteness so the driver can become deluded in the fog of exhaustion.

So to boil it down to it's barest essence. Did they know there could be possible fatal consequences. State of mind. Was there any pre-meditation to the act which led to the accident. Could it have been prevented by ordinary efforts. What is the danger level of the activity which caused the death.

This sounds like more than a hypothetical question for you. I hope it isn't. If it is I am sorry for everyone's loss. If he pointed a gun at somebody and pulled the trigger I personally feel manslaughter would be an appropriate charge. This would be especially so if he did not check to see if the weapon was unloaded before pointing it at somebody. What reason would he have to believe it was unloaded if he did not check? Why did he not squeeze off a dry shot in the air just in case. All very normal and reasonable courses of action when it comes to handling even a known empty gun. Would be different if he was carrying it and it accidentally discharged because of a hair trigger or being bumped very roughly.

The person who brought the gun to the party

is as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger!

In case 1 and 2 a reasonable person could see the possible outcome and could have prevented it.

There fore it was not an accident. It was a deliberate action. Not murder but negligent homicide.

in the third case there isn't enough info given....

anybody is entitled to take care of themselves from an unlawful attack, and rape is nicely an unlawful attack. The question could be, grew to become into using rigidity suitable for the area? 2 examples... The rapist is enormous and robust, and gently yet firmly holds the sufferer down and starts removing his clothing, inspite of his struggles. The sufferer gets off a fortunate kick to the rapist's testicles, and the rapist stops and doubles over in discomfort, writhing on the floor in suffering. The sufferer then grabs a heavy club and strikes the rapist in the pinnacle 20 cases, thoroughly crushing the rapist's head. as quickly as the rapist grew to become into on the floor, the sufferer could have particularly escaped, held the rapist off with the club, or referred to as the police on a close-by telephone. below specific circumstances, this does not be seen self protection. faster or later, the sufferer could have escaped or summoned help, and the rapist grew to become into incapacitated. The repeated blows to the pinnacle are not self protection, they're homicide. 2d occasion: The rapist pulls a knife on the unarmed sufferer, and tells him that if he does not strip, he would be lacking some physique aspects. while the sufferer hesitates, the rapist slashes him with the knife, knocks him to the floor, and holds the knife to his throat. The sufferer manages to snatch the knife, and the two adult males grapple jointly. The sufferer manages to mortally wound the rapist in the war, and breaks unfastened, nevertheless keeping the knife. this could be an suitable use of rigidity. The sufferer grew to become into in forthcoming danger of extreme actual injury or dying, and acted just to save his very own existence. That the rapist died grew to become into an unlucky factor results of the sufferer's efforts at self protection, not a planned result meant by ability of the sufferer. needless to say self protection. it is accessible in the 2d occasion that the sufferer could be arrested and delivered to detention center, yet while given a honest trial and with each and all of the information amassed, he could desire to be acquitted and set unfastened.

Dont drink and drive and dont play with guns, isnt that they have been telling us since we were born?

Yes they need to serve jail time, they were being irresponsible and deserve to be punished.