Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Principle of Guilty Mind

This essay critically examines the criminalization of unlawful act manslaughter, arguing that it violates the fundamental legal principle of 'no act is guilty unless the mind is guilty.' The author defines unlawful act manslaughter, also known as constructive manslaughter, as a form of involuntary manslaughter where death results from an unlawful and dangerous act. The essay contends that criminalizing such acts, without the presence of mens rea (guilty mind), goes against due process and the general rule that mental fault is required for criminal liability. Through examples, the essay illustrates situations where individuals may be held liable for manslaughter even when they lacked intent to cause harm, emphasizing the importance of intent. The essay contrasts unlawful act manslaughter with reckless or negligent involuntary manslaughter, which often involves awareness of risk, thus justifying criminalization. It further discusses the necessity of actus reus and mens rea for a conviction, advocating for the application of intent-based tests, such as those used in cases of murder. The essay concludes by denouncing the strict liability classification of unlawful act manslaughter, asserting that mens rea must be present and proven before any conviction.

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 1
CRIMINALIZING UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 2
CRIMINALIZING UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER
Criminal law is founded on the principle called the Actus Reus and mens rea. This means
that an act makes a person not guilty unless mind is guilty as well. An individual is also guilty
when proven culpable or blameworthy in both action and thought. This is the general distinction
between manslaughter and murder. Manslaughter is whereby an individual hits and kills another
while driving without an intention to kill the person. An unlawful manslaughter is also called
constructive manslaughter. It is a kind of involuntary manslaughter because an unlawful killing
has occurred whereby defendant lacks murder’s mens rea (Leigh 2016).
The constructive manslaughter takes place when a defendant commits an unlawful
dangerous acts leading to death. The constructive manslaughter requirements include: (i) there
has to be an unlawful act; (ii) the unlawful act has to be dangerous; and (iii) the unlawful
dangerous act has to cause death. No conviction for constructive manslaughter if any of the
elements of unlawful act is not present. The unlawful act manslaughter is the unlawful act
manslaughter. This takes place in the course of commission/attempted commission of
misdemeanor.
It is completely rejected by the Model Penal Code. A great proportion of states that
prohibit this type solely include such misdemeanors that are dangerous inherently to life in
criminal statute with exclusion of strict liability type or malum prohibition crimes. The
defendant is only required to possess criminal intent for misdemeanor to be guilty of killing. In
this paper, I hold the view that criminalization of unlawful act manslaughter violates the legal
principle of ‘no act is guilty unless the mind is guilty’.
In my view, there must be mens rea or guilty mind before criminalizing. One must have
an intention to commit a crime or have knowledge that his action or lack of it would lead to a

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 3
crime to be committed. Where it is criminalized, I hold the view that the common law standard
test of criminal liability of act not being culpable unless mind is guilty is violated. Moreover, the
criminalization goes against the due process which requires both actus reus (guilty act) and mens
rea for a defendant to be proven guilty of crime. Moreover, it is going against the general rule
principle which hold that an individual that acted in absence of mental fault is never liable in
criminal law.
To support my view, the following example showcases that it is wrong to criminalize unlawful
act manslaughter. In a case where Roberta points an unloaded gun at Joy to scare her into
breaking with Roberta’s ex-boyfriend. Such a crime is known as brandishing a weapon and
hence classified as misdemeanor. Joy then suffers a heart attack at the sight of a gun and dies.
Here, Roberta has most probably committed misdemeanor manslaughter. Brandishing a weapon
is never always dangerous inherently to life. Nevertheless, if Joy has a heart attack and
subsequently dies due to Roberta’s misdemeanor offence commissioning, under criminalization,
Roberta is still criminally liable for misdemeanor manslaughter. However, in my view, Roberta
had no intention to kill Joy and his mind was never guilty. Making Roberta liable criminal for
unlawful act manslaughter in my view, would, in this case be a typical case of the violation of
the legal principle of ‘no act is guilty unless the mind is guilty’
Another example where criminalization is could be right in my view is reckless or
negligent involuntary manslaughter. In many states, negligent or reckless involuntary
manslaughter stays common type of manslaughter than demeanor. Whereas reckless or negligent
involuntary manslaughter can be criminalized, it would be wrong to criminalize unlawful act
manslaughter. This is because whereas reckless or negligent type defendant stays aware of the
risk of death but still proceeds to act anyway. This is a type of killing that is supported by

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 4
criminal intent of negligence. This is where the defendant ought to be aware pf the risk of death
but fails to do so. This category warrants criminalization unlike unlawful act manslaughter since
it includes various accidental deaths like that triggered by firearms and explosives.
Like in the first example where Roberta just held the unloaded gun which the led to Jot
heart attack hence causing death, it would be unlawful in my view to convict Roberta based on
legal causation. By using the proximate cause rule in this case, Roberta could be held liable
wrongly. This is because it makes legally liable cause to hinge on the person closest to the
incident and this can cause wrong conviction. This a need for intervening causes to remove
liability in this scenario (Glantz 2016). Where a person is injured by a gun shot, and
subsequently struck by lightning in ambulance for example, it is unlawful in my view to convict
such a person based on the argument that shooter is liable utilizing the “but-for” test. The rule
should remain where the shooter would never be legally liable for injuries or death sustained via
the lightning strike. It was ruled, for example, in R v Cheshire (1991) that medical negligence
amounted to causation chain break, unless it stood ‘so standalone’ of defendant or “so potent” in
triggering death. Thus, in my view, this should remain applicable in the case of unlawful
manslaughter and that due process should ensure to affirm the intention.
The intention remains imperative since it stays as the mens rea requirement for such
serious offences as murder. Both direct and oblique intent remain essential and needs to be
probed to affirm whether the mind of the defendant was guilty to uphold the principle of one not
guilty until it is proven that the mind was as well guilty. For example, the direct type remains
comparatively straightforward and is connected to the aim and purpose of the defendant hence it
should really be affirmed before conviction. Oblique intent takes place where the defendant

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 5
never desired consequences, yet he were sure to take place. This must also be ascertained before
convicting any person for the rule of mind being guilty to hold (Leigh 2017).
For example, in R v Maloney (1985), the jury were moved to consider 2 queries: was
murder or serious injury a natural aftermath of defendant act? The other question was whether
the defendant foresee such consequence as being a natural consequence of their act. These two
questions, in my view, should still apply to the case of unlawful manslaughter because only
when they are both “yes” would the crime be intentional (Storey 2017). Thus without them be
affirmed by merely criminalizing any unlawful act manslaughter, would automatically not serve
the principle of guilty mind. Thus I would denounce the classification of the unlawful act
manslaughter under the strict liability as this goes against the principle of being innocent unless
the mind is proven guilty. Thus in my view, the mens rea must always be present and affirmed
prior to any conviction (Storey 2015).
Based on the need to probe and affirm intent, the actus reus must be present as one must
be proven to have had the desire to commit an act. It must also be affirmed that the defendant
had specific intent or besides his desire to bring about actus reus, the defendant must have also
desired to do something further. For example, in Thacker v. Commonwealth where shots were
fired via tent; and the defendant was charged with attempted murder should apply even in the
case of unlawful act manslaughter (Field and Jones 2017). The decision by the Supreme Court
that the defendant must have specific intent, to kill in this context tends to serve the rule of the
“mind being guilty” as well. This is because despite the defendant intended to shoot his gun
towards the tent; it is reasonable as said by the court that one cannot transfer intent, and hence it
must be an intent to kill. The court must only take the defendant stated purpose at face value to

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 6
shoot the light in deciding such a case. In my view, this should remain the principle rule to be
applied in the cases of the unlawful act manslaughter.
Another supporting example is the State v. Nastoff whereby it was held that he never
personally changed the chainsaw, yet knew about it being modified. Thus, maliciousness has to
be connected to the prohibition in statute relating to destroys and injures. In this case, the intent
to utilize the illegally modified saw was affirmed, however, he had never intended to set the fire.
Thus, it was held by the court that using the theory advanced by the state would offer a theory of
negligence and hence would still not let the state to convert the intentional wrong with
unintentional wrong (Blake and Tarrant 2015). In my view, therefore, criminalizing the unlawful
act manslaughter should never be allowed if justice were to be served because it is apparent from
my discussion that it legal principle of ‘no act is guilty unless the mind is guilty’.

Criminalizing Unlawful Act Manslaughter 7
References
Blake, M. and Tarrant, S., 2015. The violation of principle and perpetuation of gender bias in the
Western Australian assault causing death offence. UW Austl. L. Rev., 40, p.415.
Field, S. and Jones, L., 2017. When Business Kills: The Emerging Crime of Corporate
Manslaughter. Business Expert Press.
Glantz, S., 2016. Mary Lou Cornella v. Churchill County, et al., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (August
12, 2016).
Leigh, G., 2017. Deconstructing Unlawful Act Manslaughter. The Journal of Criminal
Law, 81(2), pp.112-124.
Leigh, G.D., 2016. Moral responsibility and criminal liability for unforeseen death:
reconstructing unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter (Doctoral dissertation, Kingston
University).
Storey, T., 2015. ‘Dangerousness’ in Unlawful Act Manslaughter: R v F & E [2015] EWCA
Crim 351. The Journal of Criminal Law, 79(4), pp.234-237.
Storey, T., 2017. Unlawful and Dangerous: A Comparative Analysis of Unlawful Act
Manslaughter in English, Australian and Canadian Law. The Journal of Criminal Law, 81(2),
pp.143-160.