Elements of the Crime
First degree murder is the most severe form of homicide. It is commonly defined as the intentional killing of another person by someone who acted willfully, deliberately, and with planning. It is a crime against the persons as obviously the action or actus reus causes direct harm against another individual and results in death. The mens rea around first-degree murder is complex as it depends on the statute of the state. Some require premeditation, while others such as New York only uses first-degree murder in those rare circumstances of killing of police officer or others on the list. Other states use both approaches. There are also different considerations to ‘premeditated’ as this can range from simple deliberation to intentional prior calculation and design.
Factual Scenario
The case of State v. Forrest is a true case of events. A very sick man is admitted to the hospital in 1985, deemed to be untreatable, so he is made comfortable. His son arrives to visit the father, getting into argument with nurse, arguing that his father is dying while the nurse suggests he could hold on for a while longer. After being left alone, and seeing his father struggling to cough, the son (defendant) takes out a small handgun and shoots his father in the temple 4 times. He later justifies this as mercy, not wanting the father to struggle anymore. At which point he then surrenders and cooperates with law enforcement (Lippman, 2018).
Multiculturalism and Diversity
In the factual case presented, multiculturalism does not play a strong role. Everyone involved as white, middle class. Jury in the 1980s small town in N.C. were likely the same as well. The media, and potentially jurors, were at times sympathetic to the defendant. While the state obviously prosecuted as first-degree murder since intent does not matter outside of the intent to kill in such premeditated cases, the defendant was viewed by many as a troubled but loving son. In terms of multiculturalism, I would argue that if the same situation occurred at the same time and location, but the family was African American, it would have been perceived much differently due to the existing societal prejudice at the time. It would have been described as a troubled family and gun violence. The defendant may have had faced other charges for using a gun in the hospital, and potentially a life sentence may not have been enough for the jury, as capital punishment was readily used at the time.
Judges and Sentencing
I support that judges should generally be given discretion however it should be provided with some limitations. First, all serious crimes (particularly against the person) should have minimum sentencing based on state law. Second, judges should be monitored for disparity outcomes, meaning sentencing outcomes associated with nonlegal factors such as race, gender, or other characteristics should not occur. Otherwise, discretion is an incredibly valuable tool in in the application of the law towards the concept of justice. Justice is more than punishment for breaking the crime, it is ensuring that appropriate level of punishment is provided given the circumstances surrounding the events and individual being charged. Discretion is helpful in sentencing decisions with justice in accordance to society’s moral principles and highest constitutional values of life and liberty are applied (Ostrom et al., 2004).
References
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). First degree murder. Cornell Law School.
Lippman, M. (2018). Contemporary criminal law (5th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ostrom, C.W., Ostrom, B.J., & Kleiman, M. (2004). Judges and discrimination: Assessing the theory and practice of criminal sentencing. U.S. Department of Justice.
UPI. (1986). Man sentenced to life in mercy killing.