Any Provocation Reduces To Manslaughter
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice ALydia put a strong emetic in a rival merchant's drink at a market, intending only to make him publicly embarrassed and sick. The rival drank it and had a fatal reaction.
Why it's attractive
No intent to kill, but forcing someone to ingest a strong emetic shows conscious disregard of lethal risk — that's depraved-heart malice
Why it's wrong
No intent to kill, but forcing someone to ingest a strong emetic shows conscious disregard of lethal risk — that's depraved-heart malice
16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice BAndrew's wife had terminal cancer and was in constant, screaming pain. At her repeated request, Andrew gave her a fatal overdose of her prescription pain medication.
Why it's attractive
Sympathetic facts don't negate intent. Andrew intentionally caused death. Courts don't recognize mercy as a defense to murder.
Why it's wrong
Sympathetic facts don't negate intent. Andrew intentionally caused death. Courts don't recognize mercy as a defense to murder.
16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice CPaul discovered that his business partner had embezzled their entire church-building fund. The following day, Paul waited outside the partner's house and killed him with a crossbow.
Why it's attractive
Embezzlement is provocation, but 'following day' = cooling time. Heat-of-passion defense requires no reasonable opportunity to cool off.
Why it's wrong
Embezzlement is provocation, but 'following day' = cooling time. Heat-of-passion defense requires no reasonable opportunity to cool off.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →