MovieChat Forums > A Few Good Men (1992) Discussion > Wouldn't they still be charged with mans...

Wouldn't they still be charged with manslaughter

posted 8 years ago by liverpool26
8 replies | jump to latest

"I had to do it or they'd kick me out of the marines" isn't an excuse to break the law. Maybe it's different in US but am sure if a soldier committed a crime (which they did) they are charged for that crime regardless of if they where ordered to do it.

Fact is they illegally assaulted a man and he died as a consequence, isn't that manslaughter.

[–] KSzir 8 years ago

Not sure what you mean. They were charged with First Degree Murder, which is considerably more serious than manslaughter, even under the orders. The prosecutors were willing to reduce the charge down to Manslaughter, if they pleaded guilty. When they decided not to take the plea bargain, they ended up charged with murder.
In many cases, unless the jury is given an option, a jury can't just decide on a lesser charge. The jury could only decide guilty or not-guilty on murder. In some cases juries are given the option of convicted on a lesser charge but I'm not sure how and why that happens in some cases but not others. But, they would have had to be given the option up front. A jury can't decide that on their own. I this case it was all or nothing on first degree murder.

[–] HawkeyeDJ 8 years ago

Fact is they illegally assaulted a man and he died as a consequence, isn't that manslaughter.

The whole trial hinged on whether the illegal order was given. If the order was not given, as one officer testified and others signed incident reports in support of that contention, then murder is the correct charge. The prosecution even suggested a motive for the murder.

The enlisted Marines were found guilty of 'conduct unbecoming' because they followed an illegal order. They had no motivation to kill their fellow Marine. That was a tragic accident. So, they were not guilty of manslaughter.

Add to that, their officers conspired to railroad these two enlisted men to avoid implicating themselves in the death. This mitigating circumstance led the jury to their conclusions and the sentences of 'time served' and 'dishonorable discharge.'

[–] liverpool26 8 years ago

They had no motivation to kill their fellow Marine. That was a tragic accident. So, they were not guilty of manslaughter

I don't know how it works in US but it was 100% manslaughter in UK. You don't need to have a motive for manslaughter it can even be an accident.

Definition of 1 of the three types of manslaughter- involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is in contrast to voluntary manslaughter and occurs where a person kills, but does so without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:
that caused by the defendant's gross negligence; and
that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act

If they intended to kill him it would be murder but as his death was an accident it's manslaughter.

[–] HawkeyeDJ 8 years ago

You don't need to have a motive for manslaughter it can even be an accident.

I understand where you are coming from. However, what these Marines did was not gross negligence. All they did was stuff a rag in his mouth to keep him quiet. They never got around to administering a beating. The cause of death was never determined. One expert concluded within hours of the death that some mysterious unknown, undetectable poison was to blame. And the basis for that conclusion? A healthy Marine is dead with with a rag in his mouth. That's it. No forensics, no pathology report, no toxicology report. Just a dead Marine with a rag in his mouth.

Being trained as a Marine is tough. Believe it or not, Marines die in training every year. Most are accidents. Sometimes there is equipment failure (the unopened parachute comes to mind). Sometimes human error is to blame.

Believe it or not, this was a training exercise that went wrong.

Also, take into consideration what else the jury heard. They listened as Kendrick revealed that he had disciplined Dawson when he brought food to a hungry Marine who was being punished. This was a Marine who had compassion on another human being and paid a heavy price and his fitness evals reflected that ever since.

Manslaughter? I don't thinks so. What they were guilty of was lacking the moral judgement and intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and stand up to Kendrick and Jessup.

[–] Kawada_Kira (7269) 5 years ago

"Believe it or not, this was a training exercise that went wrong."

It was not. This was just beating a guy up and having it go too far, as a reprisal for appealing to outside authorities. That isn't training, it's punishment, and an illegal form of punishment at that.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

They were convicted of negligence (conduct unbecoming a US marine) and they were punished for it.

[–] Tabbycat (764) 4 years ago

Real world, there’s no murder here. That’s just movie BS to heighten the stakes. There’s no intent whatsoever to kill him, and no malice .... *unless* you believe the fence-line shooting incident created a conspiracy to silence Pvt. Santiago by death. Unless the accused are lying, that didn’t happen. And it’s clear they’re not lying. No conspiracy to commit murder either.

It’s manslaughter, and there’s no twenty-years for that, even in the military.
A few years, tops.

In some US cities, probation.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

Probably not because they were charged with 1st Degree Murder, Jessup’s testimony provided more than enough reasonable doubt that they went in there to kill Santiago so therefore that charge was dropped. I’m not a legal expert but I find it doubtful they could have charged them with both 1st Degree Murder and then manslaughter as a backup in case the 1st degree murder charge doesn’t stick. Also once they are acquitted they can’t be charged for the same crime again.