Unusual murder sentence
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935
This lady stabs a peado many, many times but only gets 3.5 years for murder. Out in 11 months it seems.
The Judge said the case was "unique" as she had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".
The Royal Marine who got life for shooting an injured Taliban might, after close quarter combat, have "lost control" too?
Anyone explain please?
This lady stabs a peado many, many times but only gets 3.5 years for murder. Out in 11 months it seems.
The Judge said the case was "unique" as she had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".
The Royal Marine who got life for shooting an injured Taliban might, after close quarter combat, have "lost control" too?
Anyone explain please?
She wasn't convicted of murder or sentenced for murder. She was convicted of manslaughter, which unlike murder doesn't carry a mandatory life sentence. The law allows for a defendant to be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder in limited circumstances where the killing is attributable to a loss of control triggered by certain words or actions - similar to the old defence of provocation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2...
The marine who was convicted of murder for killing a wounded Taliban prisoner might have been able to argue a similar defence, I'm not sure, but from memory of the press reports it wasn't an argument that his lawyers made (possibly for good reason - I'm not sure how applicable it wold have been to his specific circumstances). Instead they argued that he hadn't intended to kill the prisoner at all, believing him to have been dead already at the time he fired the shot. A higher risk defence which had it succeeded might have seen him acquitted entirely, but meant that when it failed a murder conviction and a mandatory life sentence were the only possible outcome.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2...
The marine who was convicted of murder for killing a wounded Taliban prisoner might have been able to argue a similar defence, I'm not sure, but from memory of the press reports it wasn't an argument that his lawyers made (possibly for good reason - I'm not sure how applicable it wold have been to his specific circumstances). Instead they argued that he hadn't intended to kill the prisoner at all, believing him to have been dead already at the time he fired the shot. A higher risk defence which had it succeeded might have seen him acquitted entirely, but meant that when it failed a murder conviction and a mandatory life sentence were the only possible outcome.
Edited by Aretnap on Tuesday 29th September 22:35
Lessee now, she went to her house, got a knife, went to his house. Then she lost control, it seems. It sounds to me like she was very controlled prior to the actual act. Indeed that she had motive and will to inflict a fatal blow with a deadly weapon, and that she had this will long enough to go and get the knife and then go round to his house. That's loss of control. Of course it's not a judge deciding the scumbag had it coming, no.
Manslaughter my a*se.
This kind of thing happens all the time. An acquaintance of mine discovered that his wife had been sexually assaulted. He found the man he thought responsible and maimed him. Properly. Sadly he got the wrong man. Happily the Plod let on that he'd crippled a known scumbag, so they had a word with Justice Wotsizname. GBH, naughty boy. 6 months, out in 3.
Manslaughter my a*se.
This kind of thing happens all the time. An acquaintance of mine discovered that his wife had been sexually assaulted. He found the man he thought responsible and maimed him. Properly. Sadly he got the wrong man. Happily the Plod let on that he'd crippled a known scumbag, so they had a word with Justice Wotsizname. GBH, naughty boy. 6 months, out in 3.
Actus Reus said:
Simple - it was manslaughter on the grounds of less of control, not murder.
A bit more complex than that, I think. 'Loss of control' is very unusual, particularly with what may appear as premeditation. I expect more than a newspaper headline will need to be read to understand it.Loss of control replaced the common law defence of 'provocation'.
There has to be a 'qualifying trigger' in order for the defence to be raised.
The triggers clearly don't apply to the murdering marine.
There has to be a 'qualifying trigger' in order for the defence to be raised.
The triggers clearly don't apply to the murdering marine.
CPS said:
Section 55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 defines what is meant by "qualifying trigger" for the purposes of section 54. Prosecutors should note the following:
Subsection (3) (fear of serious violence from the victim) introduces a subjective test that must be applied as in cases involving self-defence. The defendant will have to show that he genuinely feared that the victim would use serious violence, whether or not that fear was reasonable.
Subsection (4) (things said or done). Whether the defendant was seriously wronged and he had a justifiable sense to act in the manner that he did is for the jury to determine having applied an objective test.
The requirements of sections 55(a) and (b) are fact-specific and require objective evaluation.
Subsection (3) (fear of serious violence from the victim) introduces a subjective test that must be applied as in cases involving self-defence. The defendant will have to show that he genuinely feared that the victim would use serious violence, whether or not that fear was reasonable.
Subsection (4) (things said or done). Whether the defendant was seriously wronged and he had a justifiable sense to act in the manner that he did is for the jury to determine having applied an objective test.
The requirements of sections 55(a) and (b) are fact-specific and require objective evaluation.
battered said:
Lessee now, she went to her house, got a knife, went to his house. Then she lost control, it seems. It sounds to me like she was very controlled prior to the actual act. Indeed that she had motive and will to inflict a fatal blow with a deadly weapon, and that she had this will long enough to go and get the knife and then go round to his house. That's loss of control. Of course it's not a judge deciding the scumbag had it coming, no.
Manslaughter my a*se.
Yes, it's common for judges to decide "the scumbag had it coming" and use their mind control powers on the jury, since it was the jury who decided it wasn't murder, not the judge... Manslaughter my a*se.
battered said:
This kind of thing happens all the time. An acquaintance of mine discovered that his wife had been sexually assaulted. He found the man he thought responsible and maimed him. Properly. Sadly he got the wrong man. Happily the Plod let on that he'd crippled a known scumbag, so they had a word with Justice Wotsizname. GBH, naughty boy. 6 months, out in 3.
I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not. 55palfers said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935
This lady stabs a peado many, many times but only gets 3.5 years for murder. Out in 11 months it seems.
The Judge said the case was "unique" as she had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".
Anyone explain please?
Would need to read a lot more detail but, in true PH (I don't know the facts but I have an opinion anyway) style, I would say she is a very lucky girl and a bloke may not have got the same sentence in the same circumstances. If this is not vigilantism, I'm not sure what is.This lady stabs a peado many, many times but only gets 3.5 years for murder. Out in 11 months it seems.
The Judge said the case was "unique" as she had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".
Anyone explain please?
55palfers said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935
This lady stabs a peado many, many times but only gets 3.5 years for murder. Out in 11 months it seems.
The Judge said the case was "unique" as she had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".
The Royal Marine who got life for shooting an injured Taliban might, after close quarter combat, have "lost control" too?
Anyone explain please?
It wasn't murder, it was manslaughter, she handed herself in, she admitted it and evidence confirmed her story (apparently) no intent, she already served 10 months and has to serve an additional 11 months.This lady stabs a peado many, many times but only gets 3.5 years for murder. Out in 11 months it seems.
The Judge said the case was "unique" as she had lost control rather than taken the law into her own hands and engaged in "vigilante conduct".
The Royal Marine who got life for shooting an injured Taliban might, after close quarter combat, have "lost control" too?
Anyone explain please?
The Royal Marine committed a war crime, instead of rendering aid to an injured enemy combatant, he shot him. War isn't won by killing more of them than they kill of us, its about tactics & strategy (position, timing, pressure) he shot the guy and from the evidence was well aware of his actions.
Edited by Foliage on Wednesday 30th September 09:38
It's an interesting case not least of which because it asks a lot of questions.
Pedophilia is a particularly abhorrent crime sociologically speaking, so there will be a number of people who just figure since he was convicted of such an offence (numerous times) that it doesn't really matter if he is dead, or is killed, etc.
It's certainly not as simple as that, but it's also difficult to discuss such a subject because many will also jump to the conclusion that even pondering it suggests some kind of affinity for pedophilia, or excuses it, or whatever. People don't tend to think objectively and dispassionately with such emotive subjects.
I think the sentence is soft, personally. It may in fact be appropriate for the prosecuted offence, but a man has been killed and the murderer is likely to only serve around a year. If the system wanted him to be killed by the state, or serve longer sentences, then it would have done so - without her intervention. Capital punishment by proxy is the thin end of the wedge in my opinion.
Pedophilia is a particularly abhorrent crime sociologically speaking, so there will be a number of people who just figure since he was convicted of such an offence (numerous times) that it doesn't really matter if he is dead, or is killed, etc.
It's certainly not as simple as that, but it's also difficult to discuss such a subject because many will also jump to the conclusion that even pondering it suggests some kind of affinity for pedophilia, or excuses it, or whatever. People don't tend to think objectively and dispassionately with such emotive subjects.
I think the sentence is soft, personally. It may in fact be appropriate for the prosecuted offence, but a man has been killed and the murderer is likely to only serve around a year. If the system wanted him to be killed by the state, or serve longer sentences, then it would have done so - without her intervention. Capital punishment by proxy is the thin end of the wedge in my opinion.
Chaps, pedophiles are people who like feet.
Peadophiles are I know not what but maybe they like petits pois and don't know the Greek word for it (I don't).
Paedophiles are the ones who take a sexual interest in children, not to be confused with paediatricians, as these numpties did:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childpro...
eatcustard said:
Who cares, one less pedo
So basically you're happy for people to be vigilantes here in the UK so long as it's against the "right people"?Starts at this level, then someone who looked at you strange in the street, someone you have a parking argument over - who is vigilante and killing people ever a good thing?
I read that story and I must admit it sounded a bit off. I only know the details given in the news but it's hard to wrap ones head around how someone can equip themselves with a knife, go to the address of someone they clearly have a violent dislike for, brutally stab them to death yet it wasn't premeditated? Somehow it seems to me that either A: She didn't 'lose control' and it was premeditated or B: She should be in Broadmoor if she is prone to 'losing control' and violently stabbing people to death.
Foliage said:
The Royal Marine committed a war crime, instead of rendering aid to an injured enemy combatant, he shot him. War isn't won by killing more of them than they kill of us, its about tactics & strategy (position, timing, pressure) he shot the guy and from the evidence was well aware of his actions.
In a normal war between civilised nations certainly. In this war arguably the only way to 'win' is to exterminate every last one of them until there are none left to spread their disease.
eldar said:
A bit more complex than that, I think. 'Loss of control' is very unusual, particularly with what may appear as premeditation. I expect more than a newspaper headline will need to be read to understand it.
A murder rap is life, but manslaughter can be far lower, in this case 3.5 years (because of her status as a single mother). The reason it was deemed to be manslaughter as opposed to murder was by way of 'loss of control'. She successfully convinced the Court that she took a blade along because she was scared of him, not because she had the intent to kill him, and then lost control of herself when he pushed her (by denying it all etc. etc.) and thus the mens rea for murder (the intent to cause serious harm or kill) was not present even though the actus reus (the actual act of killing him) was.EFA
Edited by Actus Reus on Wednesday 30th September 13:22
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff