A woman has gotten away with murder due to 'loss of control'

What a disgrace that is.

A woman has gone round to a neighbours house armed with a knife and killed him in cold blood has got away with murder and had it downgraded to manslaughter due to 'loss of control'. The reason? He was a paedophile

Now I know a lot of people will say he got what was coming to him and he deserved it but is that the point? Can we go round doing whatever we want to bad people?

'Loss of control' states that a normal person of normal mind and normal tolerances and self restraint would also have done the same thing in the circumstances. I'm just astounded that a judge has decided that the average sane person on the street would take a knife round to a neighbours and murder them because they were a paedophile? While I suspect a fair few would say they would do it how many actually would? If it was the normal and average thing to do then why isn't it happening every day?

 

It's about as premeditated a murder as you can ever possibly get isn't it

 

This is premeditated murder no matter how abhorrent the victim was. I don't know how vile the victim's crimes were or if he still posed a danger to society but however tempted people are to hand out justice to these monsters they simply cannot go around armed with knives, murdering people.

From what I've read / heard he had committed no crimes against her children.

 

It's a tricky one, but if you've suffered at the hands of someone, or a family member has or whatever, I can understand that I suppose. But that wasn't the case was it in this case?

I know where a lad lives who once (a fair few years ago now) 'tried' to rape a cousin of mine. He and her were 'courting', early days and that, him 23, her 19. She and him were making out etc on this occasion, she said no when he tried to take it further and - using force - had her around the neck and was close to carrying out his sick attack. She managed to kick out and get out, of his house. Police were called, he denied it happened, despite the marks around her neck etc. Said they'd just had a bit of a fight. Was charged with 'assault' and got a conditional discharge. Seriously.

But aye, he moved out of Barnsley a while after. Mate of mine in Thurnscoe spotted him last year coming out of a house there. Then again, and again etc. I and others were very tempted to give him a good hiding, I think someone still will when the chance arises. But I reckon I'd struggle to stop hitting him if I started so I won't be going there.

Naughty subject.

 

My thoughts entirely.

 

Using "gotten" deserves a knife of some sort.

Somewhere in the unspeakables.

 

Piss off thee

 

Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

It was a jury that acquitted the woman of murder and instead convicted her of manslaughter - not the judge.

 

Re: Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

He's not splitting hairs - he's just pointing out the lottery of leaving your life in the hands of a group of your peers.

As Bob said "and the whole white jury agreed...".. cept in this case it may have been ".. and the antipaedophile jury agreed.."

 

Re: Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

There's a lot of difference. After all, a jury acquitted Ken Dodd of tax evasion. The jury will have heard argument on both sides and made their decision on the facts. That's likely to have been a lot more complex argument than the reports have presented. But you can't pin the decision on the judge - he can't tell the jury what to do unless there is only one course of action open to them under the law. Here there were clearly two ways of looking at this - according to what they found on the facts before them.

 

Re: Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

He died 8 times? That was some 'incident'. Maybe she thought he was gonna come back a 9th time and would have left it there.

 

Re: Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

Armed with a knife, a wrench and a hammer. She essentially went with a horror movie killer kit

 

Re: Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

Or she went with my usual d-i-y response kit.

 

Awful thread to read, the woman killed a paedophile and discussing on here if it's manslaughter or murder, she should get a medal not prison. Am I missing something. If he was a paedophile and a risk then he should never be allowed out of confinement ever. This woman has more than likely saved another child from abuse

 

Re: Your Post Falls At The First Hurdle

It's basic criminal law that most serious criminal offences require there to be both an 'actus reus' (guilty act) and the requisite 'mens rea' (guilty mind - otherwise known as intent). That usually requires that the person charged must have acted voluntarily - of their own free will. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that this intent will not be present where there is a closely-defined situation of "loss of self-control". The circumstances of such a finding are set out in sections 54 and 55 of the Act. In this situation, the defendant is nevertheless liable to be convicted of manslaughter, which is what has happened here. It ought to be noted that the jury deliberated for nearly three days before making this finding. In any event, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is still life imprisonment, although that sentence is not mandatory, as with murder. The case has been adjourned for reports, and there can be little doubt a lengthy custodial sentence will be handed down when the case resumes. I don't think this case represents the sensationalist outrage that your original post infers. As ever, the media report tells only a small part of the story - largely the part that is likely to provoke outrage.

 

That's a very educated response Mr Kaht, do you have a legal background?