HOMICIDE (tIV.. Fr. homicide, from Lat.
manslaughter. from porno, man 4 ra.flcre. to kill). The killing of one human tieing by the aid. procurement. or omission of another. iu primitive communities, we find that it does not subject the slayer to criminal prosecution by the State. It is thought of. not as an Miens.. against the common weal, but simply. as a wrong to the slain man's kindred; a wrong which they are at liberty to redress by VI .ngoanee upon the slayer or his kindred. But this policy leads to the perpetuation of blood folds and to great waste of I lllll Ian life. .1ceorilingly. at a very Carly time, the practice is introdueed of buying off the injured kindred; of appeasing the fend by a money payment. Then a scale of compensation is fixed either by custom or by legislation, graduated evne•ally by the rank of the person slain. In Anglo-Saxon law this is known as ureryilsf—a nian's price. At first the avi'cptsnco of such eomponsation is left to the choice of the injured kindred. They may take it and stay the feud, or they may reject it and enforce their right of private vengeanee. Rut as the State gnu ) VA more powerful. and the (heath of its citizens is felt to be a harm to rue common weal. publie authority compels the injured kindred to aeeept the compensation and not to pursue the feud. Then comes the final stage of legal development. in which the unlawful taking of 1111111011 life is considered as primarily a wrong to the State, a public offense which cannot lie eompounded by private bargain. See AvENGER OF Btoon: BLOOD FEFD: BLOOD-MONEY: ASYLrIW WERGILD; etc.
Homicide is a generic term. including the crimes of manslaughter (q.v.) and murder (q.v.), as well as the non-criminal forms of killing known as excusable and justifiable homicide. This article will be confined to the two latter species. By the early common law an important distinction was made between excusable and jus tifiable homicide. The slayer in the latter case was not liable to any punishment, while in the former he was. In other words, excusable homi cide was not legally excusable. Just how far it subjected the slayer to criminal punishment is uncertain. Lord Coke declares that it rendered him liable to death. but Blackstone and Stephen
insist that his liability did not extend beyond the forfeiture of goods. At present neither excusable homicide nor justifiable homicide is punishable at all, but the two terms are still retained in use in England and in many of our States. The signification of each, however, has been varied by modern legislation from the common-law meaning. At common law excusable homicide was of two kinds: killing by accident or misfortune, and killing in self-defense. At common law, justifi able homicide was of three kinds: killing by a public officer in conformity to a judicial sen tence; killing by an officer or his assistant when necessary to overcome unlawful resistance to legal process, or to the performance of a legal duty, including killing by military forces in time of war or riot; and killing to prevent the commission of an atrocious crime.
Homicide is not wholly excusable unless it is committed without legal fault on the part of the slayer. The killing may not have been planned or thought of—it may have been accidental—yet if it resulted from the slayer's unlawful conduct. it is not a case of excusable homicide, but of manslaughter or murder. as the ease may be. So, too, homicide is justifiable only when it is in flicted in strict accordance with lawful authority. A sheriff who inflicts the death penalty upon a convict in a manner not authorized by the ju dicial sentence which he undertakes to execute does a criminal, not a justifiable, act. An officer cannot justify the unnecessary killing of even the worst malefactor that is resisting arrest. Nor is a person at liberty to take the life of a 'brutal assailant unless he can show that he had reasonable ground to believe that the assailant was about to commit a felony or do sonic great personal injury to the slayer or to some mem ber of his family or other person in his presence. and that there was imminent danger of the as sailant's accomplishing his design.
Consult: Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England (London. ISS31; Clark and Marshall, of Crimes (Saint Paul, 1900) : and the authorities referred to under CRIMINAL LAW.