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

So you think people should teach their sons that murder is bad and dont hang around with murderers? As if that needs explaining to any decent person male or female.

I went to one of these shows and you were only supposed to listen to the evidence presented like a juries . He actually took the hammer from his workshop and parts of it centred around when he did that. Yes the question was how long can you lose your mind for.

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.

I'm not sure what your comment means.

In a world where men are expected to be strong and silent and express no emotion except anger, the 'loss of control' argument does make sense - it is a logical consequence of people being unable to deal with their emotions properly.

Ideally in a world where you expect people to use their fucking words, you don't accept a situation in which someone becomes so unable to cope that they snap. Situations in a which a person is being manipulated, coerced or abused are different to my mind - in those situations you could argue self defence rather than loss of control, although you could see how loss of control would apply in a situation where a person feels hopeless and genuinely thinks they have no other way out.

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

What a load of baloney!

There's a difference between impulsivity and loss of control

Loss of control is an extreme state of arousal, an activation of the sympathetic nervous system, in response to being in a 'threat' state, by an otherwise reasonable and ordinary person

Making their sons aware of what?

There is a serious effort underway to prevent most women accused of a crime from being sent to prison - barring violent or serious crime. This is because the vast majority of crimes committed by women are crimes of necessity - they are starving, their children need something, they are being coerced. It doesn't make sense to send women like that to prison, it serves no purpose. Interesting part of the justification for this approach is that even the most disadvantaged, desperate woman generally has a number of people who rely on her - children, parents, friends - so putting them in prison has a very negative ripple effect.

At times I think if you looked objectively at men and women and how they behave you'd be forgiven for thinking they were entirely different species.

You're talking about one particular case, and I agree, that in this case it was controversial.

I don't think you can extrapolate from that though.

I do disagree that a rage 'lasts 10 seconds'. Once people are in a heightened stage of arousal there is no defined length of time that lasts for

Also women can and have used this defence, although it's not a particularly common one. I've seen a woman successfully use it for killing her children.
Like allegedly in this case, her husband had been isolating her and abusing her, and one day she snapped.

That said, it's only very recently that coercive control has been recognised as a crime, largely because it's a tactic men use against women.

Yes, and it's a lot less ... what's the word ... dangerous? Terrifying?

To actually kill someone, face to face ... horrific. Stealing food from a large faceless corporation is worlds away.

ETA - also if we were talking about stealing food specifically, that meets a basic human need. Killing someone doesn't (unless actual self-defence as they are trying to kill you.)

There are mitigations for theft. So for example, if we were in a relationship and you were controlling me, then I stole your money and ran away, I may not be convicted if the defence could show I was under duress and trying to escape.

It's eye opening if you take note of how male and female reactions are shown in fiction. Women may shout and scream but often they are silent, or peacekeeping. Very very rarely do they act out or get into a rage. By contrast, if there is a male character under stress you can be pretty much guaranteed that at some point they will behave in a selfish/cruel or violent way. In that sense Adolescence was very very run of the mill - the mother and female psychologist stayed silent or cried, while the boy and men were violent and loud.

Men need to cop the fuck on.

I wonder if it ever applies to lesser crimes? It's only the murders we hear about.

If someone was manipulated and cruelly hurt by a person then, I dunno, stole something from them and ran away, or said something threatening to them, would the "loss of control" in the heat of the moment thing count as a defence in court?

I agree. However, the only emotion men are allowed to feel is anger/rage, so it makes sense they built a whole justice system around the fallout of that - i.e. men are naturally going to become so furious that they can sustain an attack for minutes on end, but they can't be held fully responsible because for those minutes they are out of control.

It reminds me of the scene in Adolescence (spoilers) where the dad freaks out at the teenagers harassing him. In many men's minds that's understandable behaviour, regardless of the fact that he hurt a young person and upset his family hugely. Men are such dysfunctional beings that we have to accept that violent, destructive behaviour part of their expected modus operandi.

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.