Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask why jurors think manslaughter is acceptable as "loss of control" when death takes over 1min?

87 replies

Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 10:58

Curious to see what legally constitutes "loss of control" I suppose. Keep seeing women being murdered by strangulation then the guys finishing it off with a weapon they've left the room to get being given under 10 years because they clearly "couldn't help themselves".

Strangulation takes a long time...

OP posts:
Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:55

Waitingfordoggo · 27/03/2025 13:53

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the topic of murder/manslaughter without mentioning male rage.

Show quote history

Yeah I have no problem with that, that's logical

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:55

Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:52

I'd be more likely to agree it was spur of the moment if it was done in a public place - mown down by a car, someone pulling a gun on someone who pushed past them.

As I say I think location and environment are key to many of these cases. They don't ever do it where they can be stopped by other people or caught. How is that not premeditation?

Edited

I think you make a good point. I'm sure there are lots of examples of people losing control in a public place - road rage, bar fights, that sort of thing, but I agree if someone is super controlled in public then suddenly loses control in a private setting, that seems suspect to me.

It reminds me of developments around rape defence - the idea around 'reasonably believing you have consent.' It addresses the circumstances of the offence, such as whether the person was drunk etc. which is more nuanced then just 'did he ask' or 'did she say no.'

Pudmyboy · 27/03/2025 13:55

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:38

Your post is about murder. People who murder. Your using it as an excuse to bash men. Hate to break it to you but most men dont murder.

Show quote history

Most murderers are male

Waitingfordoggo · 27/03/2025 13:53

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:43

Well maybe the thread should have been headed up- lets moan about men. Rather than using an example of one case of murder to then go on a tangent of man hating.

Show quote history

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the topic of murder/manslaughter without mentioning male rage.

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:52

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:52

OP replied to my comment and I replied to hers and for some reason you have become involved. So do you mind.

Show quote history

I absolutely don't mind. Happy to help.

Original poster
Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:52

I'd be more likely to agree it was spur of the moment if it was done in a public place - mown down by a car, someone pulling a gun on someone who pushed past them.

As I say I think location and environment are key to many of these cases. They don't ever do it where they can be stopped by other people or caught. How is that not premeditation?

OP posts:
Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:52

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:50

Ok. If the 'man-haters' are bothering you, there are loads of other threads you can go to.

Show quote history

OP replied to my comment and I replied to hers and for some reason you have become involved. So do you mind.

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:50

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:46

I understand what some posters are discussing of course. But you can read the man haters a mile off.

Show quote history

Ok. If the 'man-haters' are bothering you, there are loads of other threads you can go to.

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:49

Tiswa · 27/03/2025 13:28

It is about mens rea - the guilty mind or the idea of intent. Murder at its heart is about doing something with the intent to kill. Which is actually hard to prove in some instances that the intention of the act caused death.

Manslaughter is simply the fact that doing the act caused the death.

Sentencing is where the other difference is. murder is a mandatory life sentence - manslaughter is discretionary.

the fact it is seen as Manslaughter isn’t the issue - on the strict definition of the law it has to be - you can never 100% prove intent. Where the problem lies is the discretion of sentencing and the lower sentences that can be given out

Jurors have no control over that - a guilty manslaughter verdict could easily give a life sentence. It is the judge that decides on that

Mens rea is an interesting concept - the idea that the same outcome (death) can be judged differently not based on how it came about necessarily, but on what the killer was thinking at the time. So I can understand the idea of self defence - logically that death came about because the victim threatened me and I felt I had no other choice. But if I decided to kill the victim because he pissed me off, there is a different judgement based on whether he pissed me off ten minutes ago and I suddenly went about killing him versus if he is pissed me off last week and then I planned his death. I can't really see what the reasoning is behind that - surely the fact that he's dead either way is the main thing?

Tiswa · 27/03/2025 13:46

The charge will be murder but able to introduce manslaughter which is an awful lot easier to prove.

As I said the intent to kill is quite difficult on these situations and given it has to be 100% you can see where the reasonable doubt creeps in.

Voluntary Manslaughter is when the intent was to cause gracious bodily harm (which is the loss of control) can still carry a life sentence

sentencing is always the judge because it is a technical decision

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:46

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:44

Like I said you don't seem to be getting what's discussed. That's fine you can just leave.

Show quote history

I understand what some posters are discussing of course. But you can read the man haters a mile off.

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:44

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:43

Well maybe the thread should have been headed up- lets moan about men. Rather than using an example of one case of murder to then go on a tangent of man hating.

Show quote history

Like I said you don't seem to be getting what's discussed. That's fine you can just leave.

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:43

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:40

You don't seem to be understanding the discussion at all.

Show quote history

Well maybe the thread should have been headed up- lets moan about men. Rather than using an example of one case of murder to then go on a tangent of man hating.

Original poster
Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:43

Mobe · 27/03/2025 13:42

I'm saying that show isn't reflective of real life. Try watching murder trial on BBC although that involves Scottish law, for something less sensationalist.

All judges have sentencing guidelines. They are not necessarily lenient.

Show quote history

I have watched that. Scottish law is certainly different though and IIRC you have to have a witness there to prove a rape at all?

I am ignorant as to who you say does the directing. If it isn't the judge asking rhetorical questions with his own potential bias, are the questions always the same? Sorry to keep editing; I know they are the Q's above but surely this completely depends on perception - a man might think he was wound up where a woman wouldn't for example. People who have no psychology background might forgive more, especially if they have no idea the person has a violent history.

OP posts:
Mobe · 27/03/2025 13:42

Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:39

So the system isn't fit for purpose. You say the Judge decides on specific weirdly lenient sentences anyway, so if they are directing...

Edited
Show quote history

I'm saying that show isn't reflective of real life. Try watching murder trial on BBC although that involves Scottish law, for something less sensationalist.

All judges have sentencing guidelines. They are not necessarily lenient.

TheCurious0range · 27/03/2025 13:42

I think some of the examples above should be partial defences of provocation. The case of R v Ahluwahlia 1992 establishes the defence of 'slow burn' provocation. In that example after many years of abuse she snapped and set fire to her husband (with a bucket of lit petrol) while he slept. She was convicted of manslaughter

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:42

BlushingBrightly · 27/03/2025 13:41

Most murderers are men, though.

Show quote history

Yes and?

Mobe · 27/03/2025 13:41

Tiswa · 27/03/2025 13:28

It is about mens rea - the guilty mind or the idea of intent. Murder at its heart is about doing something with the intent to kill. Which is actually hard to prove in some instances that the intention of the act caused death.

Manslaughter is simply the fact that doing the act caused the death.

Sentencing is where the other difference is. murder is a mandatory life sentence - manslaughter is discretionary.

the fact it is seen as Manslaughter isn’t the issue - on the strict definition of the law it has to be - you can never 100% prove intent. Where the problem lies is the discretion of sentencing and the lower sentences that can be given out

Jurors have no control over that - a guilty manslaughter verdict could easily give a life sentence. It is the judge that decides on that

I think this is important- it's not about getting off Scot free.
It's ascertaining which charge can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

BlushingBrightly · 27/03/2025 13:41

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:38

Your post is about murder. People who murder. Your using it as an excuse to bash men. Hate to break it to you but most men dont murder.

Show quote history

Most murderers are men, though.

MoMhathair · 27/03/2025 13:40

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:38

Your post is about murder. People who murder. Your using it as an excuse to bash men. Hate to break it to you but most men dont murder.

Show quote history

You don't seem to be understanding the discussion at all.

Pudmyboy · 27/03/2025 13:39

FortyTwoDegrees · 27/03/2025 13:12

She threw a cup at him.
So he strangled her... and then went and got a hammer?

Fucking hell, there is no defence. You could just about stretch it to understand if he'd slapped her, but actually going to fetch a hammer? No way.

And he could have avoided it all by walking away much, much earlier.

Show quote history

Absolutely agree with you!

Original poster
Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:39

Mobe · 27/03/2025 13:38

Yes but look just how people on this thread are struggling to apply the legal definitions!
In real life they are given questions to answer - if you agree X, them they must be guilt of Y etc
Laypeople cannot be relied upon to interpret the law without direction

Show quote history

So the system isn't fit for purpose. You say the Judge decides on specific weirdly lenient sentences anyway, so if they are directing...

OP posts:
Mobe · 27/03/2025 13:38

Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:35

They were given the legal definitions.

Show quote history

Yes but look just how people on this thread are struggling to apply the legal definitions!
In real life they are given questions to answer - if you agree X, them they must be guilt of Y etc
Laypeople cannot be relied upon to interpret the law without direction

Winifredtabago · 27/03/2025 13:38

Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:34

You haven't even thought about listening to it, have you.
It never starts with murder, that is the point.

Show quote history

Your post is about murder. People who murder. Your using it as an excuse to bash men. Hate to break it to you but most men dont murder.

Original poster
Thisissuss · 27/03/2025 13:35

Mobe · 27/03/2025 13:31

I've seen it and the problem is the show set up. Juries are given much more direction and guidance by a judge , on the show they made it up as they went along.
Also clearly the jury were recruited to be controversial!

I can't share the case as I encountered it in my professional life.

Show quote history

They were given the legal definitions.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread