Final answer:
The statement that a person who kills another during a sudden quarrel or heat of passion should be charged with second-degree murder is false; such a situation might instead be considered manslaughter due to mitigating factors like lack of premeditation and emotional disturbance.
Step-by-step explanation:
The charge of second-degree murder for a person who unlawfully kills another during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion may not always be the most appropriate charge. Based on historical legal standards and various legal systems, such a killing may be considered manslaughter instead, due to the presence of mitigating factors like strong emotion and lack of premeditation. This aligns with the legal concept of voluntary manslaughter, where the offender acts in the "heat of passion," which can reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. This differentiation is important, as it significantly influences the degree of the charge and consequently the severity of the sentence.
For instance, legal advice from Emperor Severus Alexander suggested leniency in sentencing for a 'crime of passion' where a person acted out of intense emotional disturbance. Similarly, historical accounts reflect that such acts were sometimes regarded with a level of understanding that considered the provoked emotional state of the killer. This nuance is relevant today as well, and when arguing cases of sudden quarrel or heat of passion killings, defense attorneys often seek to establish these factors in order to mitigate charges.
Therefore, it is false to unequivocally assert that a person unlawfully killing another during a sudden quarrel or heat of passion should be charged with second-degree murder, as the specific circumstances of each case could lead to a charge of manslaughter instead.