Stabbing In Chest Not Attempted Murder

[irc]

Seems to be a perverse result. Stab your ex husband several times in the chest and only get convicted of wounding with intent.

"A woman who stabbed her estranged husband in the chest with a kitchen knife after an argument about their pet dachshunds being put down has been jailed for three years."

"Mrs Bridger, of Taverham, Norwich, was sentenced on Thursday after previously admitting to wounding with intent. She was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her husband and possession of a blade in a public place at an earlier hearing."

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/woman-st...

A dispute over dogs being put down so maybe the jury were sympathetic.

One of the most evil things I ever heard was a couple a friend of mine knew seperating. One didn't want their dog but had it put down to stop their ex partner having it.

[wiggy001]

irc said:

Seems to be a perverse result. Stab your ex husband several times in the chest and only get convicted of wounding with intent.

"A woman who stabbed her estranged husband in the chest with a kitchen knife after an argument about their pet dachshunds being put down has been jailed for three years."

"Mrs Bridger, of Taverham, Norwich, was sentenced on Thursday after previously admitting to wounding with intent. She was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her husband and possession of a blade in a public place at an earlier hearing."

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/woman-st...

A dispute over dogs being put down so maybe the jury were sympathetic.

One of the most evil things I ever heard was a couple a friend of mine knew seperating. One didn't want their dog but had it put down to stop their ex partner having it.

Paywalled but if it is as described I wonder what the sentence would have been had the man stabbed the women...?

[BikeBikeBIke]

Weirdly came across this story yesterday:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-killing-66-ol...

A ton of form. Punched a random stranger in the head killing him and got 4 years.

I thought if you recklessly assaulted someone and killed them that was murder.... Not in this case.

[MrBogSmith]

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

[NDA]

MrBogSmith said:

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

Quite. It's a recognised form of greeting in some cultures.

[Ham_and_Jam]

MrBogSmith said:

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

Do you want to nearly kill them?

There’s not much leeway.

[ScotHill]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Weirdly came across this story yesterday:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-killing-66-ol...

A ton of form. Punched a random stranger in the head killing him and got 4 years.

I thought if you recklessly assaulted someone and killed them that was murder.... Not in this case.

Murder needs intent to kill. If you punch someone in the back of the head and they subsequently die then it is manslaughter. A continued onslaught of violence might be argued to be intent to kill in court but not guaranteed.

[Digga]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Weirdly came across this story yesterday:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-killing-66-ol...

A ton of form. Punched a random stranger in the head killing him and got 4 years.

I thought if you recklessly assaulted someone and killed them that was murder.... Not in this case.

I am in no way an expert, but AFAIK the threshold for proving murder is intent to actually kill, as opposed merely being a physical assault/injury.

It's often hard to prove and so I guess prosecution will always tend to go with what they know can 'stick' and deliver a conviction. I would broadly agree that 4 years for killing a stranger in an unprovoked and random assault is derisory and illogical. To me, this is not justice.

[Earthdweller]

NDA said:

MrBogSmith said:

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

Quite. It's a recognised form of greeting in some cultures.

It's a well known act of endearment

[Collectingbrass]

irc said:

Seems to be a perverse result. Stab your ex husband several times in the chest and only get convicted of wounding with intent.

"A woman who stabbed her estranged husband in the chest with a kitchen knife after an argument about their pet dachshunds being put down has been jailed for three years."

"Mrs Bridger, of Taverham, Norwich, was sentenced on Thursday after previously admitting to wounding with intent. She was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her husband and possession of a blade in a public place at an earlier hearing."

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/woman-st...

A dispute over dogs being put down so maybe the jury were sympathetic.

One of the most evil things I ever heard was a couple a friend of mine knew seperating. One didn't want their dog but had it put down to stop their ex partner having it.

Probably a long history of domestic abuse from the male partner as well.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Digga said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Weirdly came across this story yesterday:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-killing-66-ol...

A ton of form. Punched a random stranger in the head killing him and got 4 years.

I thought if you recklessly assaulted someone and killed them that was murder.... Not in this case.

I am in no way an expert, but AFAIK the threshold for proving murder is intent to actually kill, as opposed merely being a physical assault/injury.

It's often hard to prove and so I guess prosecution will always tend to go with what they know can 'stick' and deliver a conviction. I would broadly agree that 4 years for killing a stranger in an unprovoked and random assault is derisory and illogical. To me, this is not justice.

You don't need intent to kill, but I was wrong - a reckless assault isn't enough. there needs to be intent to cause GBH.

[Murph7355]

NDA said:

MrBogSmith said:

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

Quite. It's a recognised form of greeting in some cultures.

[jan8p]

ScotHill said:

Murder needs intent to kill. If you punch someone in the back of the head and they subsequently die then it is manslaughter. A continued onslaught of violence might be argued to be intent to kill in court but not guaranteed.

Are you sure?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/homici...

[Murph7355]

MrBogSmith said:

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

And this is where the law sucks moose cock.

Stab, shoot, hit anyone in anything other than self-defence and you should face the most serious consequences. Those actions carry sufficient risk of killing or permanently maiming someone that whether you "meant to kill them" or not should not even be a question.

If you don't intend to kill someone, don't fking touch them. It's really not hard. Those that find it difficult need to be off the streets.

[Solocle]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Digga said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Weirdly came across this story yesterday:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-killing-66-ol...

A ton of form. Punched a random stranger in the head killing him and got 4 years.

I thought if you recklessly assaulted someone and killed them that was murder.... Not in this case.

I am in no way an expert, but AFAIK the threshold for proving murder is intent to actually kill, as opposed merely being a physical assault/injury.

It's often hard to prove and so I guess prosecution will always tend to go with what they know can 'stick' and deliver a conviction. I would broadly agree that 4 years for killing a stranger in an unprovoked and random assault is derisory and illogical. To me, this is not justice.

You don't need intent to kill, but I was wrong - a reckless assault isn't enough. there needs to be intent to cause GBH.

Whereas for attempted murder it does require intent to actually kill. Intent to cause GBH isn't enough.

So yeah, the intent bar is higher for attempted murder than actual murder.

[gruffalo]

Collectingbrass said:

irc said:

Seems to be a perverse result. Stab your ex husband several times in the chest and only get convicted of wounding with intent.

"A woman who stabbed her estranged husband in the chest with a kitchen knife after an argument about their pet dachshunds being put down has been jailed for three years."

"Mrs Bridger, of Taverham, Norwich, was sentenced on Thursday after previously admitting to wounding with intent. She was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her husband and possession of a blade in a public place at an earlier hearing."

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/woman-st...

A dispute over dogs being put down so maybe the jury were sympathetic.

One of the most evil things I ever heard was a couple a friend of mine knew seperating. One didn't want their dog but had it put down to stop their ex partner having it.

Making stuff up isn't of any use now is it?



Probably a long history of domestic abuse from the male partner as well.

[Solocle]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Digga said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Weirdly came across this story yesterday:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-jailed-killing-66-ol...

A ton of form. Punched a random stranger in the head killing him and got 4 years.

I thought if you recklessly assaulted someone and killed them that was murder.... Not in this case.

I am in no way an expert, but AFAIK the threshold for proving murder is intent to actually kill, as opposed merely being a physical assault/injury.

It's often hard to prove and so I guess prosecution will always tend to go with what they know can 'stick' and deliver a conviction. I would broadly agree that 4 years for killing a stranger in an unprovoked and random assault is derisory and illogical. To me, this is not justice.

You don't need intent to kill, but I was wrong - a reckless assault isn't enough. there needs to be intent to cause GBH.

Whereas for attempted murder it does require intent to actually kill. Intent to cause GBH isn't enough.

So yeah, the intent bar is higher for attempted murder than actual murder.

Murph7355 said:

And this is where the law sucks moose cock.

Stab, shoot, hit anyone in anything other than self-defence and you should face the most serious consequences. Those actions carry sufficient risk of killing or permanently maiming someone that whether you "meant to kill them" or not should not even be a question.

If you don't intend to kill someone, don't fking touch them. It's really not hard. Those that find it difficult need to be off the streets.

GBH with intent is a perfectly adequate charge in cases like this that also carries a maximum sentence of life.

Edited by Solocle on Friday 8th May 12:41

[MrBogSmith]

Ham_and_Jam said:

MrBogSmith said:

Just because you stab someone in the chest doesn't mean you intended to kill them.

Do you want to nearly kill them?

There s not much leeway.

You have to intend to kill them and it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Murph7355 said:

And this is where the law sucks moose cock.

Stab, shoot, hit anyone in anything other than self-defence and you should face the most serious consequences. Those actions carry sufficient risk of killing or permanently maiming someone that whether you "meant to kill them" or not should not even be a question.

If you don't intend to kill someone, don't fking touch them. It's really not hard. Those that find it difficult need to be off the streets.

Sure, that's more of a sentencing discussion rather than what the crime is.

[dukeboy749r]

I am always struck by how lenient the law has appeared to have become.

And, in contemplating what I would like to happen, I try and bear in mind the Norwegian model - where recidivism is far, far lower.

Yet, for certain offences I feel a real need to have some people, chained together, breaking rocks, or picking up roadside litter for the whole of their sentences. None of this third off for good behaviour, etc.