The problem of murky analysis is not unique to the law of manslaughter, but this crime has particularly strong repercussions due to the potential sentence of life imprisonment. Over time, the English courts have vacillated between an approach that requires gross negligence and an implied element of subjective fault, and an approach that uses an objective test of fault and conduct consisting of little more than ordinary negligence. The current test formulated by the House of Lords is a hybrid that requires proof of gross negligence but is silent regarding whether the defendant must be aware of the risk created. However, few ordinary people are likely ever to have reflected on the difference between subjective and objective recklessness or between recklessness and gross negligence. Ordinary people are more likely to make cruder distinctions; the law needs to acknowledge these distinctions and understand the logic behind them. Therefore, the law needs to accept the self-evident truth that the defendant's attitude makes a difference and that jurors must make value judgments on this issue. Footnotes