Talk:Malice aforethought

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HeatherB814, Stepcorr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Tried to clarify the meaning of Malice Aforethought in the United States HeatherB814 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither precise enough for a legal definition nor comprehensible enough for a general dictionary. Can someone please rewrite it with those two goals in mind. Perhaps in two different sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.109.121 (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following from the main page as somebody has been using it as a forum:

Note that the contents of this page may not be entirely accurate.

1. Malice Aforethought is NOT a precisely defined legal term. The "classic definition" of murder proposed by Sir Edward Coke in 1797 made reference to such terminology, but this has long been discarded by the Law Lords as misleading and inaccurate through a number of old (and recent) case law.

2. Malice Aforethought is NOT the "element of mens rea". It is not necessary for there to have been any intent to commit murder for murder to have in fact been committed (see point 3 below). In England and Wales it is correct that criminal offences are broken down into actus reus and mens rea, but mens rea establishes the state of mind of the person committing the crime (easier to understand perhaps in relation to assault/Actual Bodily Harm/Greivious Bodily Harm offences pursuant to s49/s20/s18 of the Offences against the Persons Act 1861). Mens Rea and Malice Aforethought are not the same thing and should not be confused.

3. The article refers to R v Woollin (which itself merely reiterated the test in R v Nedrick as being the correct test in 'most circumstances'). In fact the leading authority on the definition of murder is found in R v Walker and Hayles [1990] where it was stated that ‘[O]nce one departs from absolute certainty, there is bound to be a question of degree. Reading Lord Scarman’s speech in Hancock and [reading] Nedrick we are not persuaded that it is only when death is a virtual certainty that the jury can infer intention to kill. Providing the dividing line between intention and recklessness is never blurred, and provided it is made clear ... that it is a question for the jury to infer from the degree of probability in the particular case whether the defendant intended to kill, we would not regard the use of the words "very high degree of probability" as a misdirection." Therefore "vritual certainty" is not the test, but "very high degree of probability".

4. But a test of what? This article seems confused as between intent and mens rea. As stated above, there is no need for there to be an intent to commit murder for murder to have been committed. The "mens rea" element should be thought of as the state of mind of the person who committed the act which resulted in death of another person, and consequently whether or not there was an intent to commit that act. Eg: If you blow up an aeroplane in mid-air purely in order to collect on the insurance, it can be strongly argued that (as you intended to blow up the aeroplane) you have committed murder. This is because there is a "very high degree of probability" that blowing up an aeroplace in mid-air will result in the deaths of the people on board that aeroplane. Malice aforethought or intent to commit murder have nothing to do with whether you have committed murder in this context.


________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.86.87 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with appropriate knowledge please verify the U.S. law elements included on this page. David91 11:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


'"Malice aforethought" is a precisely defined legal term.' --- If that is the case, perhaps someone could give the precise definition?Juneappal 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malice aforethought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malice_aforethought&oldid=1215304615"