Can someone settle an argument for me please?

You could go to jail for involuntary manslaughter but in the case you laid out I would thing not. Can't see a grand jurry indicting him for it. Now if someone heard them arguing and making threats the week before and now one of them is dead, well then.

The law says one is viewed as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter what the situation. At least it's supposed to work that way.

Yup, you can go to jail for it, even with multiple witnesses.

Whether you go to prison is another matter entirely and is a matter for the judge and jury to decide on an individual basis. As for the scenario you laid out, he probably wouldn't go to prison.

Yes, somebody could go to jail for involuntary manslauther, but it would have to be proved that the defendant did something that was endagering the life of the other one. For example, in your particular case, if there were security measures in place that the defendant did not follow and ended up accidentaly pushing the victim off the ledge. But if all security measures were in place, if there nothing was done "wrong" by the defendant, then he probably would not be found guilty.

key word, "supposed"

I was baliff in Maryland for two years, I've seen a lot and I can tell you that innocent until guilty is a phrase only. Juries come in with the mindset that even if the person didn't commit the crime they are accused of, the cops nabbed him/her for some good reason and he/she should be punished for that. I'm sorry if I seem cynical, I've just seen it happen way to many times.

The way the system really works is that they're usually guilty until proven innocent, unless they're a celebrity of some time, have had a lot of positive media exposure, or are filthy rich.

Yea, that does sound right. I just read up an article on Encarta explaining this. I didn't think about whether there was recklessness involved. Example is someone running through a redlight and get's hit by a car, it's actually a lesser charge of misdemeanor manslaughter. (I feel that spell-check icon creeping ) My original point was that it's involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you look at it.

The way the system really works is that they're usually guilty until proven innocent, unless they're a celebrity of some time, have had a lot of positive media exposure, or are filthy rich.

The guilty until proven innocent part I think is true. But look at Martha Stewart, money and fame can't always help you. OJ got lucky.

OJ wasn''t the exception (unfortunately)

As for Martha Stewart, she has ticked off too much of the population for the past few years for people to presume her innocent.

It''s strange how it works. Cops deliberately target celebrities because by making an example they boost their profile (often resulting in a budget boost), lots of (usually good) publicity, etc. But when they jury comes in, they want the celebrity to keep being a celebrity and so they are predisposed to rule "not-guilty" unless guilt is proven past the farthest shadow of a doubt and then some.

[edit] The only reliable exception to the above rule is when someone has really ticked off the public, such has how the CEOs have. The CEO scandels have greatly increased the vulnerability of any rich person or celebrity that goes to trial for anything related to a corporation, but has little impact outside of that. [/edit]
[Message Edited]

Off with the head
[Message Edited]

I don't know about that. I find that people are usually much more severe towards celebrities than towards every day people. If your next door neighbour gets caught shoplifting, you'd just shrug "So?", but if a celebrity does it it's a scandal. It's also true for things such as drinking, smoking, taking drugs. Britney Spears smokes and drinks?? OMG! What's the world come to?!!

Patric....... my neighbor probably didn't shoplift $5,000 worth..................   

Paxx, in my opinion, the scandal is the punishment, which is why celebs get lesser or no sentence. Wynona Rider will forever be looked down upon for shoplifting, just as OJ will always have the scar on his name. That's worse than going to jail.

The public relishes the scandel, but things are different when actually in the court room. The jury tends to let celebrities off with light sentences (which often are not served for one reason or another), or let them off the hook entirely.

I think that would there is no simple black and white answer to such a question. In the even of something as you mentioned--it's a tough one. Sure it was an accident--but that guy is DEAD.

Perfect example: And this IS a true story. A few years ago, a fellow co-worker was in the center lane, about to make a left, to turn into the company parking lot. Being in a hury, she decides to make that left at a pretty darn good speed might I add--well she plows into this other woman, in a suburbun who was moving at a decent speed as well. Well, she plowed into the woman in the white suburban pretty damn hard...the impact ejected the driver of the suburban from her seat--through the back seats--and out the back window--out onto the street!!! That women is dead. (I'm leaving a lot of details, so I can condense the story)

Now should my aquaintance/co-worker go to jail?? HELL YEAH! There are two children in this world without a mommy because she didn't want to be two minutes late!

I know that sounds calouse of me--but bottom line is a life was taken--and it could have been prevented by stopping, in the center lane, waiting as the person was supposed to have.
Seeing that body and the wreck that morniing--FOREVER keeps me from driving fast (as I used very badly speed).

Whether she went to jail or not, I never found out, as a few weeks later I moved to Denver. So I don't know what happened.

wow my spelling sucked on that post

I think that there should be severe punishments for that woman, but not jail since it was an accident.

Good night I'll pick it back up in the morning.

Ah but there is such a thing as criminal negligence, reckless endangerment and those are criminal charges with criminal penalties. Intent to cause injury or death is not a requirement. Simliarly, some "accidents" simply wouldn't have happened if the person responsible didn't knowingly do something wrong or dangerous to cause the accident, although that person did not intend harm to anyone. Those are the kinds of cases that could result in criminal penalties.

And to Hus: As for your sister's comment about witnesses, that really isn't relevant to the sentencing. Usually there are sentencing guidelines. Whether there are witnesses or no witnesses may or may not be relevant to the case as evidence for a conviction depending upon the circumstances and other evidence in the case.

Here are some links on involuntary manslaughter:

A recent case in the news: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/jun/10/061006523.html

Definition of: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm

Model Jury Instructions: http://www.socialaw.com/Rules/homicide/involmanslaughter.html

In the past seven years, the emergency medical community stopped labeling car crashes as accidents. Their reasoning being an accident is a random act that could in no way be avoided. Using this reasoning, a good lawyer could possibly sway a jury into believing the defendant in question was negligent in his actions, not utilizing safety measures put into place by the company he worked for, as well as OSHA regulations for safety in the workplace. Therefore, it WAS his fault the victim died and he could possibly go to jail, though probably with a more lenient sentence of say 6 months and some form of instruction in safety in the workplace.
Using this reasoning, many DUI convictions have been enforced, after all, if the person wasn't driving while intoxicated, he would never have put the victim at risk. Again, a good lawyer could point out , the victim should have some responsibility, just by having been in the place of the incident to begin with. all these scenes could have been avoided in some way. Point being, get a good lawyer if ever you are in the position of standing before a judge or jury.

Involuntary manslaughter (if convicted of) is still manslaughter.

Here is a real life example that happened to a family friend: He was driving his car at night doing the speed limit.  As he came over the crest of a hill, he hit a guy who was rollerblading in the middle of the street, facing away from traffic and was wearing all black.  He was charged with involuntary vehicular manslaughter and spent 5 years in jail and 5 years on probation.  It was a pure accident, but in the end, he did kill guy. 

KG, that last case you mentioned was definitely injust. It was purely the rollerblader's fault. Oh well, yet another miscarriage of justice.

WOW, KG. That seems odd. What was the conviction based on? Was he speeding? Had he been drinking?

I've never heard of anything like that.

no drinking.  no speeding.  they said that he should have been able to react faster.  It was not fair, but the winner of a case is usually determined by how good the lawyer is.  At least he ended up with the minimun punishment.

Now that's a case where the charges and sentencing seem inappropriate based on the conditions stated here. Unless even driving the speed limit was unsafe due to weather conditions (impaired visibility in heavy fog, for ex.), but even so... If that wasn't a factor, WOW. Definitely, a good lawyer in such circumstances is a necessity. Not everyone has the reflexes of a race car driver.