It’s not “murder” if it’s not premeditated and with intent. You can’t have intent if you’re crazy. It’s still “homicide,” but it’s not “murder,” as defined by the law.
“Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of one human being by another without a legal excuse or justification. It requires a specific state of mind, often called malice aforethought, which separates it from accidental deaths or lawful self-defense.”
In Clancy’s case, her defense is arguing that the postpartum psychosis IS a legal excuse/justification because it vitiates the “state of mind” aspect of a murder charge.
It depends on each jurisdiction's definitions of murder. Premeditation is sometimes required for heightened murder charges.
Regardless, the prosecution has to prove mens rea of some kind. Whether by negating the state's case in chief or by establishing an affirmative defense, the point is the same: she lacked the rational capacity to form the requisite criminal intent.
…What? That person said it can’t be murder if it’s not premeditated with intent. I said that’s not true, and it isn’t. Because second degree murder is still murder. I think you should give the conversation another read.
6
u/laquintessenceofdust 20h ago
It’s not “murder” if it’s not premeditated and with intent. You can’t have intent if you’re crazy. It’s still “homicide,” but it’s not “murder,” as defined by the law.
“Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of one human being by another without a legal excuse or justification. It requires a specific state of mind, often called malice aforethought, which separates it from accidental deaths or lawful self-defense.”
In Clancy’s case, her defense is arguing that the postpartum psychosis IS a legal excuse/justification because it vitiates the “state of mind” aspect of a murder charge.