au1929 wrote:Why couldn't he have been charged with murder which he did indeed commit? What difference does it make if he committed it with depraved indifference or what ever. Yeah I know it's the law. As ridiculous as it apparently is.
I answered these questions in my previous posts.
In the state of NY, there exist two classes of second-degree murder:
1) Intentional Murder; and
2) Depraved Indifference Murder.
The charge of
intentional murder applies to one-on-one killings and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
specifically intended to kill the actual victim.
The charge of
depraved indifference murder generally applies to situations OTHER THAN one-on-one killings where the defendant is not targeting a specific victim, but rather, where the defendant's conduct (e.g., shooting into a crowd of people, letting loose a vicious lion) demonstrates a depraved indifference to to life.
Another example of depraved indifference murder: If an offender places a bomb in a public place, it explodes, and the person nearest the explosion is killed--the state cannot prove that the offender specifically intended to kill the person who was actually killed. Therefore, a charge of intentional murder would not apply. However, the law provides that some acts demonstrate a depraved indifference to life and should be punished as severely as intentional murder.
It is improper to blend and mix the two different categories of murder. It isn't sufficient to constitute "depraved indifference murder" to merely assert that the defendant's shooting of a specific victim, even if the defendant didn't intend to kill the victim, constitutes a depraved indifference to life. That's NOT the law. In a one-on-one killing, if the offender did not intend to kill the victim, he is not guilty of murder--he is guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
