Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse,

especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice

aforethought. [1][2][3] This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish
murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is a
killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation,
or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that
lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness.
Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime, and thus believe that
the person charged should receive harsh punishments for the purposes
of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person
convicted of murder generally faces a long-term prison sentence, possibly a life
sentence; and in a few, the death penalty may be imposed.

Etymology[edit]
The modern English word "murder" descends from the Proto-Indo-European "mrtró"
which meant "to die".[5] The Middle English mordre is a noun from Anglo-
Saxon morðor and Old French murdre. Middle English mordre is a verb from Anglo-
Saxon myrdrian and the Middle English noun.[6]

Definition[edit]
The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in
his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder,
which by this definition occurs
when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable
creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express
or implied.[7]
The elements of common law murder are:

1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. through criminal act or omission
4. of a human
5. by another human
6. with malice aforethought.[8]
The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the
boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defence, or the killing of
enemy combatantsby lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-
combatants during a war.[9]
Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[8] – the total and
irreversible cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[8] With advances in medical
technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking
the end of life.[8]
Сriminal act or omission – Killing can be committed by an act or an omission.[10]
of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law,
a fetuswas not a human being.[11] Life began when the fetus passed through
the vagina and took its first breath.[8]
by another human – In early common law, suicide was considered murder.[8] The
requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded
suicide from the definition of murder.
with malice aforethought – Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday
meaning – a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill
will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation
and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by
eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true
malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act
with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice".
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:[12]

i. Intent to kill,
ii. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes
described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine).
Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the
defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use
authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the
bullet". Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to
guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally
used to harm one or more victims.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result
from the defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a
conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. In
Australian jurisdictions, the unreasonable risk must amount to a foreseen probability of
death (or grievous bodily harm in most states), as opposed to possibility. [13]
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an
inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping.
Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault,
otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
As with most legal terms, the precise definition of murder varies between jurisdictions
and is usually codified in some form of legislation. Even when the legal distinction
between murder and manslaughter is clear, it is not unknown for a jury to find a murder
defendant guilty of the lesser offence. The jury might sympathise with the defendant
(e.g. in a crime of passion, or in the case of a bullied victim who kills their tormentor),
and the jury may wish to protect the defendant from a sentence of life imprisonment or
execution.
Degrees of murder[edit]
"Murder in the second degree" redirects here. For the 2016 album, see Murder in the
Second Degree.
Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The distinction between first- and second-
degree murder exists, for example, in Canadian murder law and U.S. murder law.
The most common division is between first- and second-degree murder. Generally,
second-degree murder is common law murder, and first-degree is an aggravated form.
The aggravating factors of first-degree murder depend on the jurisdiction, but may
include a specific intent to kill, premeditation, or deliberation. In some, murder
committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are also treated as
first-degree murder.[14] A few states in the U.S. further distinguish third-degree murder,
but they differ significantly in which kinds of murders they classify as second-degree
versus third-degree. For example, Minnesota defines third-degree murder as depraved-
heart murder, whereas Florida defines third-degree murder as felony murder (except
when the underlying felony is specifically listed in the definition of first-degree
murder).[15][16]
Some jurisdictions also distinguish premeditated murder. This is the crime of wrongfully
and intentionally causing the death of another human being (also known as murder)
after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase
the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.[17] State laws in
the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation". In some states, premeditation
may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated
murder is one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely
than manslaughter or other types of murder, often with a life sentence without the
possibility of parole, or in some countries, the death penalty. In the U.S, federal law (18
U.S.C. § 1111(a)) criminalizes premeditated murder, felony murder and second-degree
murder.[18] In Canada, the Criminal Code classifies murder as either 1st- or 2nd-degree.
The former type of murder is often called premeditated murder, although premeditation
is not the only way murder can be classified as first-degree.
Common law[edit]
According to Blackstone, English common law identified murder as a public
wrong.[19] According to common law, murder is considered to be malum in se, that is an
act which is evil within itself. An act such as murder is wrong or evil by its very nature.
And it is the very nature of the act which does not require any specific detailing or
definition in the law to consider murder a crime.[20]
Some jurisdictions still take a common law view of murder. In such jurisdictions, what is
considered to be murder is defined by precedentcase law or previous decisions of the
courts of law. However, although the common law is by nature flexible and adaptable, in
the interests both of certainty and of securing convictions, most common law
jurisdictions have codified their criminal law and now have statutory definitions of
murder.
Exclusions[edit]
General[edit]
Although laws vary by country, there are circumstances of exclusion that are common in
many legal systems.

 Killing of enemy combatants who have not surrendered by lawful combatants, in

accordance with lawful orders in war, is also generally not considered murder;
although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes.
(see the Laws of war article)
 Self-defence: acting in self-defence or in defence of another person is generally
accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise
have been murder. However, a self-defence killing might be considered
manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took
place. In the case of self-defence it is called a "justifiable homicide".[21]
 Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.
 In many common law countries, provocation is a partial defence to a charge of
murder which acts by converting what would otherwise have been murder into
manslaughter (this is voluntary manslaughter, which is more severe than involuntary
manslaughter).
 Accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances,
these may or may not be considered criminal offenses; they are often
considered manslaughter.
 Suicide does not constitute murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however,
may be considered murder in some circumstances.
Specific to certain countries[edit]

 Capital punishment: some countries practice the death penalty. Capital punishment
may be ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal
trial with due process for a serious crime. The 47 Member States of the Council of
Europe are prohibited from using the death penalty.
 Euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide: the administration of lethal drugs by a doctor to
a terminally ill patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, in many jurisdictions
it is seen as a special case (see the doctrine of double effect and the case of Dr
John Bodkin Adams).[22]
 Killing to prevent the theft of one's property may be legal, depending on the
jurisdiction.[23][24] In 2013, a jury in south Texas acquitted a man who killed
a prostitute who attempted to run away with his money.[25]
 Killing an intruder who is found by an owner to be in the owner's home (having
entered unlawfully): legal in most US states (see Castle doctrine).[26]
 Killing to prevent specific forms of aggravated rape or sexual assault – killing of
attacker by the potential victim or by witnesses to the scene; legal in parts of the US
and in various other countries.[27]
 In Pakistan, the killing of a woman or girl in specific circumstances (e.g., when she
commits adultery and is killed by her husband or other family members, known
as honor killing) is not considered murder.[28][29]
 In the United States, in some states and in federal jurisdiction, a killing by a police
officer is excluded from prosecution if the officer believes they are being threatened
with deadly force by the victim. This may include such actions by the victim as
reaching into a glove compartment or pocket for license and registration, if the
officer thinks that the victim might be reaching for a gun.[30]
 Space jurisdiction is similar to that of international waters. Therefore, a murder
committed in outer space is subject to jurisdiction in the country that owns the space
craft in which the killing transpired. In the event the murder occurred on an
extraterrestrial planet (e.g. The Moon), no country can own land of any other
planet [31] so the killer is bound by the laws of the country in which they
originate.[32]This also applies to the ISS per agreement signed by all countries that
have worked on the station so all astronauts are covered by extraterratorial
jurisdiction.
Victim
All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is, a human being who
was still alive before being murdered. In other words, under the law one cannot murder
a corpse, a corporation, a non-human animal, or any other non-human organism such
as a plant or bacterium.
California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187, was interpreted by the Supreme
Court of Californiain 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a
prerequisite to a murder conviction.[33]This holding has two implications. The first is a
defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother
herself could have terminated without committing a crime. [33] The second, as stated by
Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, is that because women carrying nonviable fetuses
may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of
intentionally murdering a person he did not know existed.[33]
Mitigating circumstances[edit]
Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded
as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of
"manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than being found guilty
of murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected
their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorderand
medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when
assessing responsibility.
Insanity[edit]
Main articles: Insanity defense and M'Naghten rules
Mental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused
by schizophrenia and dementia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the
stress of a trial as to liability. Usually, sociopathy and other personality disorders are not
legally considered insanity, because of the belief they are the result of free will in many
societies. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of
the disorder, the defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used to get a not
guilty verdict.[34]This defence has two elements:

1. That the defendant had a serious mental illness, disease, or defect.

2. That the defendant's mental condition, at the time of the killing, rendered the
perpetrator unable to determine right from wrong, or that what he or she was
doing was wrong.

Postpartum depression[edit]
Postpartum depression (also known as post-natal depression) is recognized in some
countries as a mitigating factor in cases of infanticide. According to Dr. Susan
Friedman, "Two dozen nations have infanticide laws that decrease the penalty for
mothers who kill their children of up to one year of age. The United States does not
have such a law, but mentally ill mothers may plead not guilty by reason of
insanity."[38] In the law of the Republic of Ireland, infanticide was made a separate crime
from murder in 1949, applicable for the mother of a baby under one year old where "the
balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the
effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon
the birth of the child".[39] Since independence, death sentences for murder in such cases
had always been commuted;[40] the new act was intended "to eliminate all the terrible
ritual of the black cap and the solemn words of the judge pronouncing sentence of
death in those cases ... where it is clear to the Court and to everybody, except perhaps
the unfortunate accused, that the sentence will never be carried out." [41] In Russia,
murder of a newborn child by the mother has been separate crime since 1996. [42]
Unintentional[edit]
For a killing to be considered murder in nine out of fifty states in the US, there normally
needs to be an element of intent. A defendant may argue that he or she took
precautions not to kill, that the death could not have been anticipated, or was
unavoidable. As a general rule, manslaughter[43] constitutes reckless killing, but
manslaughter also includes criminally negligent (i.e. grossly negligent)
homicide.[44]Unintentional killing that results from an involuntary action generally cannot
constitute murder.[45] After examining the evidence, a judge or jury (depending on the
jurisdiction) would determine whether the killing was voluntary or involuntary.
Diminished capacity[edit]
In those jurisdictions using the Uniform Penal Code, such as California, diminished
capacity may be a defence. For example, Dan Whiteused this defence[46] to obtain a
manslaughter conviction, instead of murder, in the assassination of Mayor George
Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. Afterward, California amended its penal code to
provide "As a matter of public policy there shall be no defense of diminished capacity,
diminished responsibility, or irresistible impulse in a criminal action...." [47]
Aggravating circumstances[edit]
Murder with specified aggravating circumstances is often punished more harshly.
Depending on the jurisdiction, such circumstances may include:

 Premeditation
 Poisoning
 Murder of a child
 Murder of a police officer,[48][49] judge, firefighter or witness to a crime[50]
 Murder of a pregnant woman[51]
 Crime committed for pay or other reward, such as contract killing[52]
 Exceptional brutality or cruelty
 Methods which are dangerous to the public,[53] e.g. explosion, arson, shooting in a
crowd etc.[54]
 Murder for a political cause[48][55]
 Murder committed in order to conceal another crime or facilitate its commission.[56]
 Hate crimes, which occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her
perceived membership in a certain social group.
 Treachery (e.g. Heimtücke in German law)
In the United States[57] and Canada,[58] these murders are referred to as first-
degree or aggravated murders. Murder, under English criminal law, always carries a
mandatory life sentence, but is not classified into degrees. Penalties for murder
committed under aggravating circumstances are often higher, under English law, than
the 15-year minimum non-parole period that otherwise serves as a starting point for a
murder committed by an adult.
Felony murder rule[edit]
Main article: Felony murder rule
A legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions broadens the crime of murder: when
an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous crime, (regardless of intent), he/she
is guilty of murder. The felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means
of deterring dangerous felonies,[59] but the case of Ryan Holle[60] shows it can be used
very widely.
Year-and-a-day rule[edit]
Main article: Year and a day rule
In some common law jurisdictions, a defendant accused of murder is not guilty if the
victim survives for longer than one year and one dayafter the attack.[61] This reflects the
likelihood that if the victim dies, other factors will have contributed to the cause of death,
breaking the chain of causation; and also means that the responsible person does not
have a charge of murder "hanging over their head indefinitely".[62] Subject to any statute
of limitations, the accused could still be charged with an offence reflecting the
seriousness of the initial assault.
With advances in modern medicine, most countries have abandoned a fixed time period
and test causation on the facts of the case. This is known as "delayed death" and cases
where this was applied or was attempted to be applied go back to at least 1966. [63]
In England and Wales, the "year-and-a-day rule" was abolished by the Law Reform
(Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. However, if death occurs three years or more after the
original attack then prosecution can take place only with the Attorney-General's
approval.
In the United States, many jurisdictions have abolished the rule as well.[64][65] Abolition of
the rule has been accomplished by enactment of statutory criminal codes, which had
the effect of displacing the common-law definitions of crimes and corresponding
defences. In 2001 the Supreme Court of the United States held that retroactive
application of a state supreme court decision abolishing the year-and-a-day rule did not
violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution.[66]
The potential effect of fully abolishing the rule can be seen in the case of 74-year-old
William Barnes, charged with the murder of a Philadelphia police officer Walter Barkley,
who he'd shot nearly 41 years before. Barnes had served 16 years in prison for
attempting to murder Barkley, but when the policeman died on August 19, 2007, this
was alleged to be from complications of the wounds suffered from the shooting - and
Barnes was charged with his murder. He was acquitted on May 24, 2010.[67]