An Argument for Diminished Culpability Manslaughter

Responding to Gaps in Victorian Homicide Law

Madeleine Grace Ulbrick, Asher Flynn, Danielle Tyson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The complexity and diversity of unlawful killings — particularly those involving mentally impaired offenders — does not fit neatly across the binary distinction of offence/defence that structures criminal law. This is demonstrated in the Australian State of Victoria, where cognitively impaired homicide offenders who fail to meet the strict remit of the mental impairment defence have no (partial) defence or offence available to them which adequately captures their levels of criminal responsibility, moral agency and culpability. This makes the sentencing of such offenders not only particularly complex but means that the only stage in which both moral and legal culpability can be considered is in mitigation. This article argues that a progressive framework is needed to permit a small minority of (mentally impaired) homicide offenders to be simultaneously inculpated and (partially) exculpated. Accordingly, we propose introducing a model of diminished culpability manslaughter in Victoria, drawing from Loughnan’s seminal reconceptualisation of ‘diminished responsibility manslaughter’ as an offence-cum-defence, which renders the diminished accused differently liable. Informed by a study of all homicide cases (n=647) sentenced in Victoria between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2017, we argue that this model would not revoke legal capacity and would instead enhance the legitimacy and coherence of criminal law procedures, allowing a wider range of more legitimate convictions and reflective sentencing dispositions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)201-231
Number of pages31
JournalMonash University Law Review
Volume45
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • manslaughter
  • culpability
  • intellectual impairment
  • cognitive impairment

Cite this

@article{6475f8eb3dbd4462ae2510c859a3a2ff,
title = "An Argument for Diminished Culpability Manslaughter: Responding to Gaps in Victorian Homicide Law",
abstract = "The complexity and diversity of unlawful killings — particularly those involving mentally impaired offenders — does not fit neatly across the binary distinction of offence/defence that structures criminal law. This is demonstrated in the Australian State of Victoria, where cognitively impaired homicide offenders who fail to meet the strict remit of the mental impairment defence have no (partial) defence or offence available to them which adequately captures their levels of criminal responsibility, moral agency and culpability. This makes the sentencing of such offenders not only particularly complex but means that the only stage in which both moral and legal culpability can be considered is in mitigation. This article argues that a progressive framework is needed to permit a small minority of (mentally impaired) homicide offenders to be simultaneously inculpated and (partially) exculpated. Accordingly, we propose introducing a model of diminished culpability manslaughter in Victoria, drawing from Loughnan’s seminal reconceptualisation of ‘diminished responsibility manslaughter’ as an offence-cum-defence, which renders the diminished accused differently liable. Informed by a study of all homicide cases (n=647) sentenced in Victoria between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2017, we argue that this model would not revoke legal capacity and would instead enhance the legitimacy and coherence of criminal law procedures, allowing a wider range of more legitimate convictions and reflective sentencing dispositions.",
keywords = "manslaughter, culpability, intellectual impairment, cognitive impairment",
author = "Ulbrick, {Madeleine Grace} and Asher Flynn and Danielle Tyson",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.26180/5dca7ab6c7dbc",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "201--231",
journal = "Monash University Law Review",
issn = "0311-3140",
number = "1",

}

An Argument for Diminished Culpability Manslaughter : Responding to Gaps in Victorian Homicide Law. / Ulbrick, Madeleine Grace; Flynn, Asher; Tyson, Danielle.

In: Monash University Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2019, p. 201-231.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An Argument for Diminished Culpability Manslaughter

T2 - Responding to Gaps in Victorian Homicide Law

AU - Ulbrick, Madeleine Grace

AU - Flynn, Asher

AU - Tyson, Danielle

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The complexity and diversity of unlawful killings — particularly those involving mentally impaired offenders — does not fit neatly across the binary distinction of offence/defence that structures criminal law. This is demonstrated in the Australian State of Victoria, where cognitively impaired homicide offenders who fail to meet the strict remit of the mental impairment defence have no (partial) defence or offence available to them which adequately captures their levels of criminal responsibility, moral agency and culpability. This makes the sentencing of such offenders not only particularly complex but means that the only stage in which both moral and legal culpability can be considered is in mitigation. This article argues that a progressive framework is needed to permit a small minority of (mentally impaired) homicide offenders to be simultaneously inculpated and (partially) exculpated. Accordingly, we propose introducing a model of diminished culpability manslaughter in Victoria, drawing from Loughnan’s seminal reconceptualisation of ‘diminished responsibility manslaughter’ as an offence-cum-defence, which renders the diminished accused differently liable. Informed by a study of all homicide cases (n=647) sentenced in Victoria between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2017, we argue that this model would not revoke legal capacity and would instead enhance the legitimacy and coherence of criminal law procedures, allowing a wider range of more legitimate convictions and reflective sentencing dispositions.

AB - The complexity and diversity of unlawful killings — particularly those involving mentally impaired offenders — does not fit neatly across the binary distinction of offence/defence that structures criminal law. This is demonstrated in the Australian State of Victoria, where cognitively impaired homicide offenders who fail to meet the strict remit of the mental impairment defence have no (partial) defence or offence available to them which adequately captures their levels of criminal responsibility, moral agency and culpability. This makes the sentencing of such offenders not only particularly complex but means that the only stage in which both moral and legal culpability can be considered is in mitigation. This article argues that a progressive framework is needed to permit a small minority of (mentally impaired) homicide offenders to be simultaneously inculpated and (partially) exculpated. Accordingly, we propose introducing a model of diminished culpability manslaughter in Victoria, drawing from Loughnan’s seminal reconceptualisation of ‘diminished responsibility manslaughter’ as an offence-cum-defence, which renders the diminished accused differently liable. Informed by a study of all homicide cases (n=647) sentenced in Victoria between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2017, we argue that this model would not revoke legal capacity and would instead enhance the legitimacy and coherence of criminal law procedures, allowing a wider range of more legitimate convictions and reflective sentencing dispositions.

KW - manslaughter

KW - culpability

KW - intellectual impairment

KW - cognitive impairment

U2 - 10.26180/5dca7ab6c7dbc

DO - 10.26180/5dca7ab6c7dbc

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 201

EP - 231

JO - Monash University Law Review

JF - Monash University Law Review

SN - 0311-3140

IS - 1

ER -