Judging Evil: Rethinking the Law of Murder and Manslaughter

By Samuel H. Pillsbury | Go to book overview

8
Crimes of Passion

On the morning of April 2, 1993, Ellie Nesler lost control.

She had gone to court with her young son, who was due to testify at the
preliminary hearing of Daniel Driver. Driver stood accused of sexually mo-
lesting Nesler's son and three other young boys at a camp several years earlier.
Driver had convictions in two previous cases for child molestation. Nesler also
had a past involving child molestation—she had been a victim of it as a child.

The preliminary hearing was a traumatic event for Nesler's son. Driver had
reportedly threatened to kill the boy and his mother if the boy ever told any-
one about the molestation. The boy had vomited repeatedly in anticipation of
his courtroom appearance.

According to defense witnesses, as Driver was brought into the courtroom
that morning he smirked at Nesler and her son; Nesler lunged at Driver but
was held back by relatives. Then another mother told Nesler that the prosecu-
tion's evidence had been weak so far and that Driver “was going to walk.” On
hearing these words Nesler took a small .22-caliber pistol from her sister's
purse which was hanging in the court hallway, returned to the courtroom and
emptied the gun into the handcuffed Driver, killing him.

Nesler was tried for first-degree murder but was convicted of voluntary
manslaughter, the jury determining that she killed in the heat of passion.1

Anglo-American criminal law has always had a soft spot for the impassioned homicide. The doctrine of heat of passion, also called provocation, marks the difference between murder and manslaughter, traditionally the difference between a hanging offense and one punished by less severe sanctions. Today the doctrine no longer plays a central role in determining whether a killer will die, but it still makes a major difference in punishment.2

The question is why. What is the principle behind the provocation rule? Assuming the jury's decision was correct, did Nesler deserve less punishment because the pressures on her were so great that she lost self-control and so became less responsible? Or was the verdict correct because she had good reason for rage at Daniel Driver, making the killing a less fundamental challenge to human value than most intentional homicides? To put the question

-125-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this book

This book has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this book

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Judging Evil: Rethinking the Law of Murder and Manslaughter
Table of contents

Table of contents

  • Judging Evil - Rethinking the Law of Murder and Manslaughter iii
  • Contents v
  • Preface the Challenge of Criminal Responsibility vii
  • Acknowledgments xiii
  • Part I - Deserved Punishment 1
  • 1: A Question of Value 3
  • 2: The Value of Choice 18
  • 3: Punishment as Defense of Value 32
  • 4: Just Punishment in an Unjust Society 47
  • 5: Moralizing the Passions of Punishment 62
  • Part II - Defining Murder and Manslaughter 77
  • 6: From Principles to Rules - An Introduction to Mens Rea 79
  • 7: The Worst Crime of All 98
  • 8: Crimes of Passion 125
  • 9: Crimes of Indifference 161
  • Appendix - Proposed Jury Instructions 189
  • Notes 197
  • Index 261
  • About the Author 264
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen
/ 264

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.