|
|
|
|
|
by btilly
246 days ago
|
|
Not according most states. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is malice aforethought. For first degree murder, you must have intended the death of a particular person. For second degree murder, you need only have known that you could kill someone, and did it anyways. This specifically includes things done with extreme recklessness. So to prove second degree murder you need to show 1) you intentionally did something, 2) you knew (or should have known) it could kill someone, and 3) someone died. These can be proven for arson. You have to prove the intent to start the forest fire. Everyone knows (or should know) that forest fires can kill people. You have to prove that someone died from the fire. That is why arson qualifies as second degree murder. Just like, say, failing to maintain the brakes on a fleet of trucks. (True story. My nephew was the unlucky driver of such a truck whose brakes failed...) |
|
The textbook example is running someone over while fleeing the scene of a robbery. You didn't have mens rea for murder, the crime you intended to commit was robbery. But you chose to commit a felony, and someone did die because of it. Not only that, it's potentially capital murder, because it was for financial gain (Newsom put a moratorium on felony murder death sentences, so that's not a thing at the moment).