Inquisitor said:Manslaughter? What on Earth is this country coming to?![]()
Garp said:Go look up the definition of Manslaughter.
Such comparisons are hardly fair. Let's try comparing the UK with its peers, i.e. other western European ones, in which case I can't think of anywhere that's as generally screwed as we are. Taxed to death, law and order breaking down, health service falling apart, useless public transport infrastructure and outmoded concepts of democracy.daz said:You'd think the UK was one of the worst countries in the world the way people on this forum go on about it.
How about emigrating to Somalia, where there has been no central government for 15 years.
daz said:How about emigrating to Somalia, where there has been no central government for 15 years.
daz said:Literally the slaughter of a man.
How it's less than murder, I'll never know.o
)
Telescopi said:If I hit you, you fall over cracking your head on the pavement and die - that is man slaughter, I killed you, there is no doubting my actions directly caused your death.
But I didn't mean to.
I wouldn't call a frenzied knife attack man slaughter though, certainly diminished responsibility, crime of passion and all that - I'm guessing the prosecution went for manslaughter though because they thought the jury might not go for murder, as in this country we do not have grades of murder, all murder is life.
R124/LA420 said:Perhaps if 10 years ment 10 years this situation would change?
If this is the case, why can a mere truck driver like I clearly see this, but, not the Lord Chief justice?
Sequoia said:What I've found, in just about every single case, is that even where a relatively unbiased organ such as Auntie Beeb is reporting, the reports are, at the very least, curtailed and somewhat superficial. This is because legal decisions are often complex. They rely on this point of law, and that, and the difference between this point and that.
Snipped to keep the size down..
My point, as I guess is clear, is that while a sentence may SEEM unreasonably light (and I'll grant you, it does), without having seen and heard all the evidence, we aren't really in a position to judge and NO newspaper report, however well-being and unbiased, has the space to present anything even close to a complete account. And if they did, almost nobody would read it.
Sequoia said:Or are we supposed to just lynch people on the basis of newspaper reports and an emotive response, and call it justice?
It can be intentional, and still not murder. If he was suffering from diminished responsibility, that drops murder to manslaughter. My point was that murder is a legal definition, as is the distinction between murder and manslaughter, not a common-sense one. And because it's a legal distinction, it's for the courts to decide, not the papers or an emotive reaction to them.fozzybear said:If he didn't plan to kill his wife, then why did he keep the kitchen knife in a bedside cabinet? Luckily it just happened to be there when he sliced and diced his wife in their bedroom.
It all sounds very convenient to me.
It does ruin a good argument on the boards, that's true.Meridian said:Long and honourable (?) tradition on these boards - people don't usually let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
The thing is, diminished responsiblity is actually (and rightly) quite hard to prove, as a defendent, but if you do manage it, it is a defence against murder and the offence then becomes manslaughter.Telescopi said:I wouldn't call a frenzied knife attack man slaughter though, certainly diminished responsibility, crime of passion and all that - I'm guessing the prosecution went for manslaughter though because they thought the jury might not go for murder, as in this country we do not have grades of murder, all murder is life.