<![CDATA[Comparative homicide scholarship lacked a framework for identifying a common basis for intentional homicide without treating national offence categories as doctrinal equivalents. This study developed a transsystemic explanation that preserved differences in culpability and offence structure across legal traditions. It used normative legal research with statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches, drawing on legislation, selected decisions, official law reform documents, and academic literature from England and Wales, France, Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, and South Africa. The findings showed that the most consistent basis arose when death was intended, while knowledge of practical certainty remained functionally close but could not serve as a universal standard. Serious injury intent and dolus eventualis could not be placed on one linear scale because they differed in the consequence intended and the offender's awareness of death. Premeditation, motive, method, and connections to other offences produced different legal effects according to their position within each offence structure. These findings supported the Core-Gradient-Architecture Model, which separated relatively stable culpability, variations in the offender's mental attitude toward death, and national choices concerning offence labels and aggravation. The model provided a more precise basis for fair labelling and comparative analysis without reducing distinct national categories to false equivalents.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
