The discussion centers on the legal significance of using multiple synonyms in legal language, specifically examining the terms "kill" and "slay" as used in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Participants highlight that while these terms may seem redundant, they often reflect historical legal practices and the evolution of legal writing. The conversation also clarifies that coroners in the UK are trained legal professionals, which adds weight to their terminology. Overall, the trend in modern legal writing is to minimize redundancy, moving away from older conventions.
PREREQUISITESLegal scholars, law students, practitioners in criminal law, and anyone interested in the evolution of legal language and its implications in modern legal practice.
Yet the coroner’s report concluded that the patient herself was responsible for her death: “The deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed.”
ThisHaborix said:many of these strange writing habits got baked into the proper forms that needed to be observed in courts and legal documents to make them effective
Explained here: Legal doubletSwamp Thing said:Do the words "kill and "slay" have distinct legal meanings that need to be specified separately?
More generally, you often see several synonyms thrown in together in legal sentences. Is it because of separate precise legal meanings that need to be included, or is it a kind of historical-cultural thing where they felt that it sounded more comprehensive that way?
In England (and many other places) they are.Haborix said:Since a coroner is not really someone trained in law
I suspect that the coronor used these words because there was no equivalent statutory definition of suicide.6 Indictment for Murder or Manslaughter.
In any Indictment for Murder or Manslaughter, or for being an Accessory to any Murder or Manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the Manner in which or the Means by which the Death of the Deceased was caused, but it shall be sufficient in any Indictment for Murder to charge that the Defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his Malice aforethought kill and murder the Deceased ; and it shall be sufficient in any Indictment for Manslaughter to charge that the Defendant did feloniously kill and slay the Deceased; and it shall be sufficient in any Indictment against any Accessory to any Murder or Manslaughter to charge the Principal with the Murder or Manslaughter (as the Case may be) in the Manner herein-before specified, and then to charge the Defendant as an Accessory in the Manner heretofore used and accustomed.
Ah, you're right. They are trained in the law in a similar sense to how police are trained in the law. I only meant to say they aren't lawyers, so I wouldn't give any weight to the terms they use.pbuk said:In England (and many other places) they are.
No, most coroners in the UK are lawyers and since July 2013 they must be.Haborix said:Ah, you're right. They are trained in the law in a similar sense to how police are trained in the law. I only meant to say they aren't lawyers
Maybe you wouldn't, but in the UK a coroners words carry a great deal of weight: in England and Wales they are answerable only to the High Court.Haborix said:I wouldn't give any weight to the terms they use.
In many jurisdictions this is called a "lesser included offense". One can be charged with murder but only be convicted of "unlawful discharge of a firearm".gmax137 said:It enables them to charge the offender with the highest degree of murder, as well as each lesser type of murder,