Talk:Depraved-heart murder

International Equivalents

Regarding England and Wales, the sentence for Murder is always “Life” even when the “minimum tariff” ie the time that must be spent in prison varies by age and aggravating factors. Prisoners serving Life are only ever released on licence, are are subject to recall if they break their parole conditions or commit another offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.59.184 (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger to Crime of Passion

Depraved Heart Murder seems alot similar to Crime of Passion NMFCFan113 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? They are almost polar opposites; a murder that is a crime of passion is when is incredibly worked up and kills someone intending to do so, whereas a depraved heart murder lacks the intent to kill or possibly even seriously harm but acts with disinterest towards the possible damage they may do. (Sidenote: if the person intended to seriously harm someone, their death would be felony murder, not depraved heart, right?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Grandstanding and the Gray case

The issue of grandstanding is frequently encountered and because of the frequency with which this issue has come up on this article, I'd like to open a discussion to explain why the edits are being removed. The Gray case, while important to race-relations in the US and a significant current event, is not important to the understanding of the topic. It does not warrant special discussion here just because it is happening now unless it would serve a separate purpose in helping the article. The purpose of any Wikipedia page is to educate the reader on an issue and all of its important related subjects. While the Gray is important, it simply does not aid an understanding of the topic at hand. --krimin_killr21(talk) 23:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely helps the article by describing the application of the law. Its as necessary as the section itself. Either keep it or remove the section itself. Either well known cases ellucidate the topic or it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.221.168 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the unreferenced lede addition ...

"The most high-profile recent case in the United States relates to the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray, who was apparently fatally wounded while in police custody in April 2015. Among the charges against six Baltimore police officers: -- Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., the driver of the transport van, was charged on Friday May 1 with second-degree depraved-heart murder, involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, manslaughter by vehicle, and misconduct in office."[1]

... by an anonymous IP user with no other editing history[2] comes off as 'grandstanding'. For me, its use of "The most", its mention of other officers, and its listing of charges extraneous to the article topic all contribute to such an impression.

On the other hand, a referenced entry at the bottom of the article—under a section heading of "Example case"—without the extraneous bits and phrased in a more neutral tone as follows:

"A high-profile case in the United States relates to the April 2015 death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray who died in hospital a week after he was injured in police custody. Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., the driver of a police transport van, had failed to secure Gray—who was handcuffed and shackled in the back of the vehicle—with a seatbelt. Goodson, who had also delayed in responding to Gray's requests for medical attention, was charged on Friday May 1, 2015 with second-degree depraved-heart murder."

... seems to me to be well within context of the article and—as a real world example many readers may be be familiar with—it may well contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic and hence provide encyclopedic value. Though perhaps a plural heading, i.e. "Example cases", might be preferred so as to encourage and anticipate other editors further illustrating the article with other relevant examples. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

References

@Krimin killr21: In hindsight, might the naive grandstand/peacock edits placed earlier in the lede have left you predisposed to react with some haste[3] to a later edit by an experienced editor—overlapping in subject, but differing in form—well within the body of the article? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My descion here was following the lead of User:SMP0328., who made the original removal. However, considering a more comprehensive listing of example cases, I would be more inclined to have such a section. I agree that the section should be kept, on the condition that it contain a larger list of cases. I will attempt to contribute to this list. --krimin_killr21(talk) 02:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding a section regarding example cases would improve this article. However, I would not include the Gray case. The Gray case has just begun and nobody knows how much of a role the charge of DH murder will play. The trial judge will likely have to rule on a motion to dismiss that charge. Maybe the officer facing that charge will enter into a plea deal that would include a dropping of the DH murder charge. So while adding the proposed section is a very good idea, the Gray case should not be added except possibly at the end of the case. At that point, we will know how much of a role the DH murder charge played in the Gray case and whether it deserves mention in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gray case in particular seems to be manifesting a wealth of highly notable sources explicitly addressing the topic of the article. (e.g. Google search: freddie gray depraved-heart murder). In fact I think it's now fair to say we've advanced beyond a stub and can remove the tag. Regardless of the final outcome of the case, the many explanations of the charge itself in highly notable sources seems to establish a certain utility which serves an interest in informing readers about the meaning of the term "depraved-heart murder". If in the future other examples rise in notability/relevance/quality-of-example and the Gray/Goodson case fades the Wiki as a living document may well adapt then. But for now, I think it's fair to surmise that many casual readers are currently coming to this article explicitly seeking clarification of media usage of the term in context of the Gray/Goodson case. It seems a courtesy and inline with the principal of 'least surprise' to offer them up-to-date relevant content wikilinked to other articles to facilitate further browsing in our nonprofit, volunteer edited, ad-free encyclopedia. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What you describe is more appropriate for articles such as 2015 Baltimore protests and Death of Freddie Gray. Wikilinks to this article can be added to those articles. This article is about DH murder generally, not just in the context of the Gray case. Anyone coming to this article after hearing/reading/seeing about what has happened in Baltimore wants to know the elements of DH murder and the article does that now. SMP0328. (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I was imagining someone arriving first at 'Depraved-heart murder'—as in fact did I—after hearing/seeing the term used in 'the media' (a PBS Newshour vid online in my case) and then branching out. I generally find cross-linking conducive to ease of browsing when I'm info-surfing the Wiki ... and suspect this may perhaps hold true for others as well. Again, a courtesy for readers. A sort of service. The difference between having one's waitperson offer a clean fork with desert or having to ask them for it. While it was 'technically' 'available' in either case ... --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with User:SMP0328. here, the huge majority and consensus of Wikipedia editors do not. Darn. I see many articles and sections that jump the gun on something that is to be determined in the future. (Especially in Law and in Culture areas, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan created & then kept just 5 days after the incident.) It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Yet. But it is. And I live with it as one editor of 13,000, you know?

I don't deny that User:Kevjonesin has well stated his case, and I like the generic "Well-known (example) cases" section because it is flexible, but I still agree with SMP0328., despite the depressing and inevitable fact that we'll lose this argument in this medium. I can argue the "ten-year test" under WP:RECENTISM, but that often doesn't hold sway with closing admins here, occasionally an editor or two buys it. It seems, however, there is room for plenty, around here.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• A naive new editor's, IP-user:69.143.202.48's, recent edits[4] have led me to reconsider a bit. I may not have fully thought through how defending a moderate mention from deletion might also lead to having to defend it from expansion. In retrospect a 'See also' link probably would have sufficed for cross referencing—perhaps along with some 'External links'. 'No good deed goes unpunished', as it were. I think it's good in the long-run to have a 'Well-known cases' section, though. I'm willing to concede that explicitly addressing the Gray case in the body of the article may have been premature. The many Gray case associated references addressing the term "depraved-heart murder" may contribute to bolstering general explanations of the term without needing to delve into detail about the specifics of the case at this time. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I really think we need to be careful referencing or linking to the Freddie Gray case or other pending cases. The case is in its very early stages. There hasn't even been a preliminary hearing or grand jury indictment yet, much less a jury trial. It is very possible that the second degree murder charge gets dropped or that a court dismisses it at some point. I think the WP:RECENTISM, issue is very relevant. There isn't yet a consensus in the legal community as to whether the alleged facts meet the elements of a depraved heart murder charge. In general, it is not a good idea to use pending cases as examples of legal principles because we don't know whether a case will end up supporting the legal principal in question. Until the courts sort this out we should leave it alone. If there is a conviction for depraved heart murder and it is upheld on all the appeals, then it would be a very good example that should be included in the article. But not before. MdCriminalAttorney (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Linking from 'See also' section

@MdCriminalAttorney: Please cease unilaterally removing the "Death of Freddie Gray" link from the #See also section. While, as per above, I've come around to concurring that bringing up the Gray case in the main body of the article is probably more trouble than it's worth (due to patterns of editor behavior; I still feel it serves as a valid example of the charge being made—regardless of whether the charge 'sticks' in the future). Anyway, as to the 'See also' link, such links serve to lead readers to other articles which relate to the article at hand in some manner and may be of interest to readers wishing to broaden their knowledge, overlapping or in parallel, varied in scope and scale. They are a sort of convenience and are not held to the same standards of inclusion as content within the main body of an article. I've already elaborated above some examples of why there seems to be value in cross-linking with the Gray article and still feel doing so is useful to many of those presently coming to this article.

An aside, it seems worth noting, to me, that when you removed the paragraph regarding the depraved-heart murder charge associated with the Gray incident you were shortcutting an ongoing (above) talk page discussion. Seeing as how this appears to have been your first edit on Wikipedia I suggest you 'slow your roll', turn your red linked userpage—MdCriminalAttorney—into a blue one, and generally take a little time to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia practices, de facto as well as de jure. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In short, a 'See also' link does not "[refer] to a pending case". It simply offers a wikilink from one Wikipedia page to another Wikipedia page which may be of topical interest to readers of the first. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin:I can't help noticing both by viewing the comments you have made on this talk page and the edits you keep making to thie article that you are going out of your way to link the Freddie Gray case to depraved heart murder. I question your motivation. It seems you want to use this page as a forum to express your opinion that someone in this case is guilty of second degree murder. This is very troubling. Are you trying to influence the jury pool in this case? You also need to stop being so condescending to other other users. Whether my links are red or blue, it makes no difference. I also saw you referred to another user as "naive", which is inappropriate. Since you claim to be an expert in wikipedia regulations, maybe you should flag this page to senior editors to determine whether the Freddie Gray case should have any connection to this page before there is a conviction.MdCriminalAttorney (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• In response to User:MdCriminalAttorney's recent removals[5][6] I have placed an edit warring warning upon his talk page.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@MdCriminalAttorney: As to my motivations, I have already addressed them above, in detail. As to my usage of the term "naive" it is a synonym for "inexperienced". As to my suggestions to you, take 'em or leave 'em as you will I suppose. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. MdCriminalAttorney (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some discussion related to the above carried over to my talk page.[7] --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Freddie Gray Case

This section should never have been in the article, and so I have removed it. Listing someone found not guilty of a crime as a "well-known case" of that crime is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the section on George Floyd and Derek Chauvin for the same reason. It is inappropriate to name someone on this article when they haven't been convicted.

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

Derek Chauvin is known only for this incident; he is not a public figure. While it might be necessary to include his name on the main article about the incident itself, we shouldn't include this here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename?

I propose renaming Depraved-heart murder to Depraved-indifference murder per WP:COMMONNAME. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I know that it is flawed, but Google gives me:

• "depraved indifference": 167,000 results.
• "depraved heart": 126,000 results.
• "depraved indifference murder": 27,900 results.
• "depraved heart murder": 22,700 results.
• "depraved indifference homicide": 1,550 results.
• "depraved heart homicide": 68 results.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

From US Legal:[8]

"Depraved Indifference Law and Legal Definition

"To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of 'depraved indifference recklessness' the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to 'depraved mind murder,' although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the 'depraved indifference recklessness' necessary for murder:

'to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind... The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct.' 60 NY2d at 274."

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Depraved-heart murder

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Depraved-heart murder's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Explainer":

• From Derek Chauvin: Forliti, Amy (April 21, 2021). "EXPLAINER: What next after Chauvin's conviction on 3 counts?". Associated Press. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
• From Murder of George Floyd: Forliti, Amy. "What were charges against Chauvin in Floyd death?". ABC News. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)