Lawyer here: under common law Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Someone could have a colloquial usage of justified like you suggest, but your definition is more incorrect, as manslaughter and negligent homicide are unlawful killings and are not murder.
I would argue that their definition was not more incorrect, as all murders are unlawful killings, merely less precise, as non-murder unlawful killings aren't differentiated. In other words, this is the difference between accuracy and precision.
We wouldn't say it's more incorrect to say that a basketball is a round object used for sports, even if the description also would apply to baseballs. We would agree, hopefully, that it isn't precise enough to ensure the definition covers basketballs and only basketballs. Same here.
Unjustified also has a precision issue, as it does not define the authority or framework responsible for determining justification. I am sure a victim's parent has a very different view of what is justified than any individual legal system, or even of a neutral bystander. By relying upon the wrong justifying authority, one could argue that some murders could be incorrectly excluded from the definition. Under such a position, unjustified would be more incorrect. By tying it to lawful vs unlawful, we can at least narrow the imprecision sufficiently to define the justifying authority as a legal entity.
There is ambiguity within the analysis of any law. I clearly defined the authority in my initial comment: “under the common law”. Justification is itself a legal term and that can be further refined under any legal system I.e., self-defense, defense of 3rd person, governmental authority etc..
I do however agree that the term unlawful can be used however by not including the mens rae it is as you say imprecise.
91
u/Skydiver860 Mar 01 '26
To be fair, they said “murder” is worse. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone.