Critical Analysis of in Cold Blood - What Do They Mean by "In Cold Blood"

There are many clinical and colloquial terms used to describe or classify murder. A general definition of murder is the deliberate killing of another human. Branching from the broad definition are more specific classifications of murder-first degree murder, second degree murder, third degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, premeditated murder, etc.. There are also more colloquial terms that people use to describe a murder. An example would be, murder in cold blood.

The layman terms are very interesting in how they are used within society. In cold blood is actually a murder that is ruthless and unfeeling with premeditation. Premeditation involves planning, stalking and /or deliberately acting out thoughts that were made in advance. However, we often hear people say: "He was murdered in cold blood," when the circumstances are not always congruent with premeditation. For example, if a jealous husband walks in on his wife with a lover and kills them in a fit of rage, people will often say he murdered them in cold blood. This may be because the wife and lover were unarmed or in a vulnerable state, but it still does not equal premeditation. It could also be attributed to the frequent misuse by print and air media. I have seen a number of my local newspaper headlines that read "in cold blood...." But, if you read the content, it is usually not a premeditated murder. A critical analysis of in cold blood is needed here. The layman usually does not understand the technical or legal difference between first, second, or third degree murder and how each carry a different sentence and weight during trial. The misuse by media outlets further act to cement the misuse onto society.

Some may see the difference a moot point and feel that murder is murder. However, our legal system hinges on accuracy to provide the blind balance in fairness. If the jury, peers, public, etc... hear "murder in cold blood," they automatically imagine the most atrocious circumstances. They don't stop to do a critical analysis of in cold blood and see if the shoe actually fits. Premeditation flies out of their thoughts as the words formulate a stereotypical meaning. Whether the accused committed a premeditated crime or not, is now irrelevant to the listener. They have a preconceived notion in their mind.

Without a critical analysis of in cold blood, what it really means, and if it is actually applicable, the accused is being cheated of the fair trial that our nation promises. It also lessens the inference when used applicably. I fear that if we do not pay closer attention to the substance behind the words we use, criminals will be the only ones that benefit. In cold blood and premeditation will eventually lose their power in meaning, from misuse.

There is already considerable judicial criticism related to the hair splitting differences between first and second degree murder, without adding colloquial terms used out of context to the mix. Until there is a critical analysis of in cold blood, at the federal level, there will continue to be an imbalance in the judicial process.