• Is depraved indifference consistent with traditional culpability?
• If not, why do NY and other jurisdictions find it necessary to increase punishment for certain essentially reckless acts

RESPOND BACK TO ME ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS. HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME. ASK ME QUESTIONS BACK. TELL WHAT YOU AGREE WITH OR NOT

1. Depraved indifference can be slightly different than traditional culpability due to the concept of intent, and mental state of mind before acting. Depraved indifference regards an individual who is in a reckless state of mind that can raise the risk of death to another. Meanwhile, traditional culpability backs the concept of an individual having a specific target in mind and accepting fault. The main difference separating consistency between the two is the intent behind the actions of the perpetrator.

New York and other jurisdictions find it necessary to increase punishment for certain essentially reckless acts due to the mental state of recklessness. Falling back on the perpetrator's knowledge of their actions is important when determining the extent of punishment to be served.

2. Depraved indifference is consistent with traditional culpability because it deals with the persons state of mind. Depraved indifference shows the individuals disregard for human life or safety of others. Their actions are those of someone who does not care if their action harm others. NY Penal Law 125.15 Second Degree Manslaughter is when a person recklessly causes the death of another person, or he intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide. The difference between second degree manslaughter and deprave indifference is with second degree manslaughter the culpable mental state is recklessly and with depraved indifference the mental state is more severe as it involves a extreme disregard for human life.

3. When it comes to depraved indifference, individuals recklessly engage in crime that pose a great risk to others. This degree of recklessness is so grand that it is deemed a blatant disregard for one's life. In the textbook it states, [someone] "recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person". Allowing someone go to that extreme degree of crime, like "murder in the second degree (section 125.25) poses a risk to lots of people and should be punished with the upmost approach. Allowing them to be prosecuted in a traditional manner and disregarding emotional state will make sure that they are provided with the correct sentence. I could see the argument that being in an extreme emotional manner could be considered non premeditated, but allowing someone to commit such a reckless act such as murder deserves an equal punishment to any other murder. I would even go further and argue that allowing people that allow such emotions to control how they recklessly act is a bigger danger to our society and deserves a more serious punishment. New York State and other jurisdictions find it necessary that this idea is in practice, and I could see why. Allowing for unstable dangerous criminals roaming around in the streets is unacceptable and must not be tolerated.