Negligent or Reckless homicide?
<p><strong>Case:</strong></p>

<p>X is the leader of a spiritual cult. X believes that X can heal the sick by killing them with a knife and then bringing them back to life as a “new human being.”  X has never actually performed “spiritual healing” although “healing by death” is a central part of the cult. Y is a long-time member of the cult and has a fatal disease and the doctors give Y a month to live. Cult members live in a common compound and live all aspects of life  within the compound. Many have been raised from an early age in the cult.  X and the cult gather for the ritual killing of Y. X stabs and kills Y and then finds that Y cannot be brought back to life. Is X guilty of reckless or negligent homicide?</p>

<p><strong>Interpretation:</strong></p>

<p>The way I see it, X is guilty of negligent homicide. Reckless homicide is a reckless disregard for the safety/lives of others. However, X thought this would work. I think it would be reckless homicide if X had done it before and had been unsuccessful, but this is his first killing.</p>

<p>Is this the right way to think about it? Is there a law or case that applies to this to strengthen my reasoning? </p>

<p>This assumes there is a difference under the law between reckless and negligent homicide (which does not exist everywhere). In Washington state there is a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter, per <a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.32&amp;full=true#9A.32.060">RCW 9A.32.060 and .070</a>. What could be called reckless homicide is when</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(a) He or she recklessly causes the death of another person; or (b) He
  or she intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by
  inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and 'negligent homicide' would be</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with
  criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The distinction is laid out in <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.08.010">RCW 9A.08.010</a>, compare</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and
  disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or
  her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from
  conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when
  he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act
  may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk
  constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
  reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, it is important to know what "knows" means:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result
  described by a statute defining an offense; or</p>
  
  <p>(ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in
  the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are
  described by a statute defining an offense.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The fact that X has manufactured a nutty belief that killing a person doesn't lead to death does not override the fact that a reasonable person would know that stabbing a person in the heart will in fact kill them, and is murder. You could put that in contrast to the situation where he has a belief that stabbing a victim in the butt will cure him, and he is unaware that the victim's heart is freakishly in the wrong place, near his wallet – that would be negligence (being unaware). </p>

<p>In general, you aren't given legal credit for having bizarre beliefs about how the universe works, unless it can be turned into an insanity defense.</p>

homicide