Just for interest
Culpable homicide, like murder is a form of unlawful killing.
The crucial difference, however, is that if a person kills intentionally it is murder, whereas if he or she kills negligently it is culpable homicide.
Previously, South African case law took the view that a person who kills intentionally, but in mitigating circumstances, is guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. For example, where a man uses excessive force to defend himself from attack and kills his assailant, this would be culpable homicide. However, later decisions by the Appellate Division strongly support the trend towards excluding a verdict of culpable homicide where intent to kill is proved.
The essential element of the crime is negligence, but before any court can make a finding of culpable homicide it must be proved by the prosecution that a reasonable man' in the position of the accused would have foreseen that death could result from his actions.
The test for negligence is an objective one, as opposed to the test for intention in murder, which is subjective. For example, if it is shown that a man ought to have foreseen the possibility of killing someone when he fired a gun, negligence is present and he is guilty of culpable homicide. If it is shown that he must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions or that he intended to kill, intention is proved and he is guilty of murder.
The question of whether he ought to have foreseen the possible consequences of his actions is decided by reference to the 'reasonable man' the diligens paterfamilias or average prudent family man. The behaviour of the man accused of causing the death is objectively tested against what a reasonable man' would do in the same circumstances.
So pointless IMO!
