After all, a lawyer friend of mine argues, a beheading suggests at least some amount of premeditation and deliberation, which is what our criminal law course taught is required for first-degree murder.
The answer is that the first-/second-degree murder line varies a great deal from state to state. Some allow a first-degree murder conviction based on evidence of even a few seconds' worth of premeditation and deliberation. Some require evidence of some time during which the person was calm -- as opposed to in a rage -- and premeditated and deliberated calmly. And some have a detailed list of circumstances that can justify a first-degree murder charge (especially if they use the first-/second-degree murder distinction to distinguish between generally death-penalty-eligible murders and other murders).
New York fits in the last category: New York Penal Law § 125.27 lists thirteen circumstances under which a murder can be charged as a first-degree murder, and it seems likely that none of these circumstances applies here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Why Isn't the Alleged Wife-Beheader Being Charged with First-Degree Murder?
- The Italian-American Anti-Defamation League:
Furthermore, from the news accounts that I have seen, it is not clear that in this case decapitation was the actual cause of death. It may have been post-mortem mutilation, with the actual cause of death something less suggestive of premeditation.
I'd have to go with "getting your head sawed off" under "torture."
I certainly don't endorse even the throat-cutting approach -- it would still be murder, but not murder that was "especially cruel and wanton" (i.e., more cruel and wanton than the typical murder) or that involved "intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain" (i.e., of physical pain that was extremely serious, beyond the pain often involved in a garden-variety murder).
It should be first-degree murder. I live in Buffalo, and our DA makes some weird calls, this is another. He tends to be more lenient on minorities, this might be the case.
The "especially cruel" element should therefore be construed narrowly enough to fit that purpose, even though New York's death penalty is presently on ice due to a procedural flaw and an activist state high court. The language comes from Florida's narrowed interpretation of its similar circumstance, discussed in Proffitt v. Florida. It cannot be interpreted so broadly as to apply to most murders.
So why is New York's degree terminology so different from everyone else's? Well, what do you expect in a state where you can appeal from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals?
Since this didn't happen that long ago, I imagine the police are still amassing evidence. Once they cross whatever line in the sand the prosecutor has established for a Murder-1 charge in this case, you'll hear news of the charge. But not before.
BTW*, but for some cultural bias clearly on display in this case, "killed with a sword" doesn't yield "pre-meditated" any more than "killed with a gun" does, by itself. If there's a fight, or an argument and someone picks up an instrument, (loaded gun, sword, lamp, or whatever) and kills someone else in a rage, the presence of the instrument doesn't by itself necessarily adequately establish premeditation.
On the other hand, if the DA can establish that, the day before, their defendant went to the local swordsmith and said "Give me one of those there, with a blade heavy and sharp enough for beheading someone", THEN Defendant's got a problem...
R Gould-Saltman
*at the risk of offending a bunch of folks who've offered elaborate opinion as to what happened in this case, in apparent inverse proportion to their actual knowledge of verifiable facts. . .
Also, someone with more knowledge than me of how the LaValle decision has been implemented may want to weigh in on whether there is any meaningful difference in sentence between first and second degree murder in New York at this time. The main reason for the definition of first degree, the death penalty, is off the table. Is there any reason for the prosecution to charge first degree, even if they can prove it?
According to Sec. 70 of the NY Penal Code:
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN070.00_70.00.html
The sentence for first degree murder must be between 20 to life and 25 to life, while the sentence for second degree murder must be between 15 to life and 25 to life. Yeah, it's not that much of a difference.
I have to admit this penal code is very clearly written, as compared to some of the RSA's I read in NH.
There are 2 love crimes: statutory rape and bigamy.
Everything else is a hate crime.
:-D
Nick
Yup. Me too. Bothered me for years. I finally figured it out when they had a cop killer and they charged him with 1st degree.
Section x has some marks as well, but certainly it would be hard to prove the victim experienced extreme physical pain. I actually think that section is poorly written. It first suggests "especially cruel and wanton", but then requires torture as a part of the crime, which then requires pain on the part of the victim. So in this case, the murderer so hated his wife that death wasn't enough satisfaction. He had to mutilate her body. Yet, because she was already dead (presumed) his cruelty to her corpse doesn't count?
Based on such a strict reading of section x, it seems that if one died while being hung (rather than nearly dead), the rest of the drawn and quartering isn't cruel?
I trust that you've also figured out why all those trials are being held in the Supreme Court for New York County.
Anyone else get the feeling this clause was essentially a would-have-applied-to-only-one-case clause? :-)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.