talkFORUM

Spill someone's brains all over the place with a hammer because he made you feel bad and more or less get away with it. Should have fucking divorced him! What a world we live in!

Yeah, she should have stopped at nineteen and you're out. There was no need to land the 20th.

Another small step into hell

The husband sounds a right piece of work and the wife seems to have been physically and mentally crushed.
Easy to say she should have got out but without knowing the full facts and her mental state at the time of the murder we haven't a clue.
The trial would have detailed that information along with experts commenting on her mental state.
Future cases will be referred to this one making women just that bit safer.

Well, take care then if you say something a woman doesn't like and don't turn your back because this amounts to a green light for extra judicial execution.
Not terribly consistent with the position taken on assaulting burglars in your home is it ?

Extreme cases Royals, thoroughly investigated with Murder/Manslaughter decided on

Imagine a bloke getting away with the same pathetic excuse and the media falling over themselves to excuse it.

Holden Mcgroyne wrote:Imagine a bloke getting away with the same pathetic excuse and the media falling over themselves to excuse it.

Option should be available for both sexes and same gender relationships.
Manslaughter - guilty with mitigating circumstances that must be proved

Yes, well you see, we used to expect people who were suffering some trespass upon their property or person to follow the proper legal remedy. Apparently this is an exception, so I wonder where that might end ?

We now prosecute our soldiers if they shoot an enemy combatant in a theatre of war for murder, we prosecute people who defend themselves when assaulted by intruders in their homes, but find excuses and mitigations for a woman who inflicts multiple blows with a blunt instrument till her victim is dead, and call that manslaughter which requires no serious sentence.

What effect might that have upon the rule of law and respect for judicial impartiality ?

You know, when we add this to the recent rejection of a democratic vote as a means of deciding policy, I do tend to think that we're getting into some very serious trouble as a society.

Holden Mcgroyne wrote:Imagine a bloke getting away with the same pathetic excuse and the media falling over themselves to excuse it.

Right, I've just imagined it; what do I do now? Can I stop imagining it in about 5 minutes and imagine something about muslims?

How long before jihadists who kill passers by in Oxford Street argue that the foreign policy of Britain effected them so deeply that it interfered with their mental capacity to form malice aforethought and therefore get 18 months for manslaughter ?

Each case where applicable taken on its own merit .
Frivolous interpretations thrown out

Royal24s wrote:How long before jihadists who kill passers by in Oxford Street argue that the foreign policy of Britain effected them so deeply that it interfered with their mental capacity to form malice aforethought and therefore get 18 months for manslaughter ?

That would be "affected " then?
And no, not comparable to the life this woman was subjected to.
And I believed she served nine years.

Principle is the same. Provocation isn't a defence in law ,at least it never has been. However that idea seems to have been established by this Judgement and actually there's an argument which can now be made to reduce many murders to manslaughter based upon it.

You say that the jihadist's sense of provocation is not comparable to this woman's . Well that's your opinion, and if you're on the jury together with twelve like minded individuals they'll be convicted. On the other hand , it's a subjective test for the jury rather than a matter of law if this case is a precedent , so the Judge cannot prevent a jury from acquitting

It's by no means unimaginable that the "right" jury might do just that, but of course I used an extreme example to illustrate the potential. In reality , it will be more likely to effect matters like pub fights which end up in a death of long running neighbour disputes.

Since the matter of intent generally depends upon the defendants belief at the time of the crime rather than whether that belief was correct, how do we stand if a person who has suffered long term abuse makes a genuine mistake about the identity of their victim when they go in for the kill ?

Of course, Lord Lucan could apply this argument if he were here for a trial , since he made a genuine mistake when he killed the nanny believing it to be his wife. Of course, he would argue that his wife was abusive toward him during the marriage, which as we now know fully justifies a fatal battering with a blunt object , striking the victim repeatedly until dead.

Royal24s wrote:Yes, well you see, we used to expect people who were suffering some trespass upon their property or person to follow the proper legal remedy. Apparently this is an exception, so I wonder where that might end ?

We now prosecute our soldiers if they shoot an enemy combatant in a theatre of war for murder, we prosecute people who defend themselves when assaulted by intruders in their homes, but find excuses and mitigations for a woman who inflicts multiple blows with a blunt instrument till her victim is dead, and call that manslaughter which requires no serious sentence.

What effect might that have upon the rule of law and respect for judicial impartiality ?

You know, when we add this to the recent rejection of a democratic vote as a means of deciding policy, I do tend to think that we're getting into some very serious trouble as a society.

Trying my best not to appear sarcastic (as I'm told I tend to do) but surely this has been obvious for some considerable time?