Difference Between Murder and Manslaughter, Essay Example

The main legal difference between murder and manslaughter is that, while murder is based on the idea of “malice aforethought,” manslaughter is considered inherently accidental.  This this, the legal system seems to be making a distinction between the differences in intent.  The courts have determined that these definitions constitute a fundamental difference in how the individual under trial should be treated.  This distinction is based on the idea that a murder can be either committed with forethought or from a reaction to a situation.

Malice is an important idea in the consideration of murder.  It “refers to the intentional commission of a wrongful act without just cause or a legal excuse.”The willful act of the person under suspicion represents the determining factor in how the person will be presented.  Therefore, it is up to the defendant to show that they committed the act accidentally, and up to the prosecution to present evidence suggesting the forethought of the crime.

The representation of these distinctions is an attempt that the courts have made to suggest that the context of individual’s situation should be considered in determining their ruling.  By doing so, they can avoid the issue of punishing a person to a greater extent then what their intent had originally been focused towards.

Once a person has been convicted and entered into the justice system, their retention is based upon the contingencies of their behaviors and attitudes while serving their sentence.  If those who wish to be released early from their sentences are planning on receiving parole, it is evident that this is up to the discretion of the courts in determining the stability of the individual that they are considering releasing to the public sector once more.  The lawfulness of this idea is based on the way that parole is considered within the court system.  Rather than being something provided as a basic right, it is provided as a privilege by the system istself.

The primary reason that the idea of parole was implemented in the first place was in order to streamline the integration of convicted individuals into the context of their sentencing.  “Reintegration involving victims encourages victims to volunteer relevant information to parole officers and supports victim-offender communication.”  In this sense, the courts have determined the terms of the convicted, and parole is something that is granted as an addendum based on the conditions of their conviction.

The stance that the courts has made legally means that the decisions made by the courts stand as the base of the sentencing, while parole is considered a privilege.  It has been established that the person is obligated to serve, at minimum, the sentence that has been given to them by the courts, and that any time that is granted in favor of the sentence is strictly an opportunity.  “The Supreme Court has made it clear that no prisoner has a liberty interest in being released before his/her sentence expires because the trial and appeals processes have ensured that the state has lawfully deprived the person of interest in being free from confinement.”  By this, it can be considered a privilege offered by the court system, rather than a right that has been established as being inherent.