Proposed changes to the murder laws

[Wilf]

You are wrong.

I have plenty of compassion for both the victims of abuse and the victims of murder (and for the families and friends of victims).


I just don't see abuse as an excuse for murder.
Woof

But that's not what is being proposed. Its that long term provocation might be admitted as a partial defence - and thus a downgrading to manslaughter.

 

[agricola]

Read a bit more now ... and it seems the key discrepancy they are wanting to correct is that the defence of provocation is only available to a sort of instant situation - spur of the moment, loss of control sort of thing - and not to anything built up over time. This means that it has been available to (eg) the husband who loses it and kills his wife when she tells him she's leaving whilst not available to (eg) the wife subject to domestic abuse over many years who finally snaps and stabs him to death whilst he sleeps.

I agree something needs to be done to address this discreancy. Not sure on the phraseology suggested though - "seriously wronged" ... I think that would end up getting extended very widely from what is intended by case law ...

I agree DB, except that - thanks to several cases (R v Ahluwalia being the first) that have become part of caselaw - that discrepancy has already been fixed, it does not require legislation to "fix" it.

Yes, that's the worrying bit - and, frankly, the weird half-arsed bit.

Having been "seriously wronged" by the "words and conduct" of the person killed would be a partial defence, apparently, leading to a conviction for manslaughter, rather than murder.

But what the fuck counts as "seriously wronged"? The Solicitor General says the infidelity of a spouse won't count. OK, good, but what will?

Will there be any clearer definition in the legislation or will it, as I suspect, be left to the judges to decide?

I'm feeling bloody seriously wronged at the moment by a fucking rip-off artist. I wonder if the courts would think the wrong serious enough. Under the proposed law would I be able to kill her and avoid a murder conviction?

Indeed, and lets face it this Government have a history of attaching very concerning stuff to things that they and their allies in the media claim we need, or needs fixing.

It is also very worrying if the SG thinks that infidelity would not fall under this section, since this is what usually sparks off sudden losses of self-control that results in assaults / murder.

 

[Nigel]

Exactly. This argument is such bolox. (the one you're replying to I mean.)

That is. The idea people can murder with impunity, their partner and site history of abuce as provocation, with out evidence to that effect.

That is not what I am arguing, I am very sympathetic to this move in the English Legal System.
My criticism is that it is ideologically, or could be ideologically motivated/hijacked by groups/individuals (mainly from a radical feminist perspective), whose outlook is in no sense towards justice. Just building some made Sisterstorm powerbase at the detrement to anything positive. And/Or those from a utilitarian( mainly Benthamian) logic/perspective, who wouldn't have too many qualms about bending the truth for the greater 'good'.

 

[xenon]

That is not what I am arguing, I am very sympathetic to this move in the English Legal System.
My criticism is that it is ideologically, or could be ideologically motivated/hijacked by groups/individuals (mainly from a radical feminist perspective), whose outlook is in no sense towards justice. Just building some made Sisterstorm powerbase at the detrement to anything positive. And/Or those from a utilitarian( mainly Benthamian) logic/perspective, who wouldn't have too many qualms about bending the truth for the greater 'good'.

I don't know what you mean. Outline a hyperthetical example?

 

[belboid]

That is not what I am arguing, I am very sympathetic to this move in the English Legal System.
My criticism is that it is ideologically, or could be ideologically motivated/hijacked by groups/individuals (mainly from a radical feminist perspective), whose outlook is in no sense towards justice. Just building some made Sisterstorm powerbase at the detrement to anything positive. And/Or those from a utilitarian( mainly Benthamian) logic/perspective, who wouldn't have too many qualms about bending the truth for the greater 'good'.

is anyone meant to take this utter bollocks seriously?

 

[Wilf]

is anyone meant to take this utter bollocks seriously?

dunno - particularly this:

My criticism is that it is ideologically, or could be ideologically motivated/hijacked by groups/individuals (mainly from a radical feminist perspective

Are you (Nigel) arguing this change in the law will be put forward by feminists to encourage victims of abuse to top their abusers?

 

[detective-boy]

I agree DB, except that - thanks to several cases (R v Ahluwalia being the first) that have become part of caselaw - that discrepancy has already been fixed, it does not require legislation to "fix" it.

Not sure it has, totally. If I remember they managed to find an instant loss of control at the end of a series of incidents over time to make the outcome fit (i.e. it was a bit of a legal fudge to get the outcome they decided was just).

Legislation is often used to confirm / strengthen something which has grown through Common Law anyway, not least because the Courts can always change their minds in another case anyway ...

 

[Nigel]

dunno - particularly this:



Are you (Nigel) arguing this change in the law will be put forward by feminists to encourage victims of abuse to top their abusers?

Depends on how case law/social policy develops?

 

[agricola]

Bumped because of this report on the BBC website. Good to see Lord Phillips making a stand on this issue, he is correct.