Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Second-degree murder
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This question refers to a frequently used example from law and criminal justice textbooks in which a person named Steven Leslie caused a fatal traffic collision and was later convicted. The case is used to illustrate the concept of second degree murder, a serious charge that falls between premeditated first degree murder and less severe offences such as manslaughter or reckless driving. Understanding why this act is classified as second degree murder helps learners distinguish between different legal categories of homicide and the idea of malice without full planning.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
In many legal systems, homicide charges are divided into degrees. First degree murder usually involves premeditation and deliberate planning. Second degree murder involves intentional or extremely reckless conduct that shows malice toward human life but without prior detailed planning. Manslaughter and simple reckless driving are treated as less serious. The approach is to recall which degree of murder is associated with this example case. Study material commonly identifies the Steven Leslie case as an instance where the court treated the behaviour as sufficiently serious and reckless to qualify as second degree murder.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Remember that the question is widely used in objective general knowledge and law oriented quizzes, with a standard correct answer.Step 2: Note that first degree murder would require proof that the killing was carefully planned in advance, which is not mentioned in the short question.Step 3: Recognise that premeditated murder is another way of describing first degree murder, so option C repeats the same idea of planning.Step 4: Simple reckless driving, option D, does not capture the gravity of a fatal collision that leads to a murder conviction.Step 5: Various exam resources state that Steven Leslie was convicted of second degree murder after causing the collision, because his conduct showed extreme disregard for human life.Step 6: Therefore, option B, second degree murder, is the correct answer.
Verification / Alternative check:
A quick check against standard general knowledge and law question banks confirms that the accepted answer to this famous question is second degree murder. The case illustrates how a driver behaviour, such as driving under the influence or at very high speed, can be seen as so dangerous that it becomes equivalent to intentional harm in the eyes of the law. First degree murder is ruled out because there is no evidence of a detailed plan to kill a specific person. On the other hand, a mere traffic citation would not match the seriousness of the outcome. This cross check supports the classification as second degree murder.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
First degree murder is wrong because it generally requires proof that the killing was planned and deliberate, which is not indicated in the brief description of a traffic collision. Premeditated murder is wrong for the same reason, since it also implies a planned killing. Reckless driving only is wrong because it understates the seriousness of a fatal event that resulted in a murder conviction, not just a traffic offence. These options do not align with the way the case is presented in exam sources, where second degree murder is clearly specified.
Common Pitfalls:
One common mistake is to equate all serious killings with first degree murder without recognising that law distinguishes levels of intent and planning. Another pitfall is to assume that any road accident, even a fatal one, must be treated as reckless driving or manslaughter. In fact, when behaviour shows extreme indifference to human life, courts may apply the label of second degree murder. Learners should pay attention to wording in questions and to how examples are used in their study material so they can remember which degree is associated with which scenario.
Final Answer:
Steven Leslie was convicted of second-degree murder after causing a fatal collision, reflecting the legal view that his actions showed extreme recklessness and malice even without detailed prior planning.
Discussion & Comments