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

They do not lose control. They are in complete control. It is the opposite shown.

There are very similar issues around rape, where the default belief seems to be that a man will attack a woman if he ever gets the chance and therefore it's up to the woman to prevent that as best she can. It's been challenged in recent years but it does reveal how incredibly biased the justice system is - basically trying to give men a free pass for their 'natural' behaviour (rape, rage) as much as possible as though the poor babies can't help it!

I think the difference is- murder is planned/premeditated.
Manslaughter is in the moment or unintentional

I'm also interested in this: (c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

It's interesting that they mention sex and age - are women likely to be judged more harshly than men for losing control?

This is how it's defined by the CPS:

1. "54. Partial defence to murder: loss of control
2. (1) Where a person ("D") kills or is a party to the killing of another ("V"), D is not to be convicted of murder if—
3. (a) D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
4. (b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
5. (c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self
6. restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
7. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden.
8. (3) In subsection (1)(c) the reference to "the circumstances of D" is a reference to all of D's circumstances other than those whose only relevance to D's conduct is that they bear on D's general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint.
9. (4) Subsection (1) does not apply if, in doing or being a party to the killing, D acted in a considered desire for revenge.
10. (5) On a charge of murder, if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence under subsection (1), the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
11. (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence if evidence is adduced on which, in the opinion of the trial judge, a jury, properly directed, could reasonably conclude that the defence might apply.
12. (7) A person who, but for this section, would be liable to be convicted of murder is liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.
14. 55. Meaning of "qualifying trigger"
15. (1) This section applies for the purposes of section 54.
16. (2) A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies.
17. (3) This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
18. (4) This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which—
19. (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
20. (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
21. (5) This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a combination of the matters mentioned in subsections (3) and (4).
22. (6) In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—
23. (a) D's fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;
24. (b) a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;

Section 10 is interesting because it seems to imply that juries should be biased towards believing a 'loss of control' defence unless the prosecution shows beyond reasonable doubt that it's false.

The whole thing strikes me as massively patriarchal and informed by a belief that a person can just go into a rage and destroy the world around them and that is an actual defence, when, to me, the idea that you can just lose control and kill speaks equally as ill of your character as pre-meditated murder - it means that potentially you should never be trusted in society again.

I was involved in a murder trial many years ago. A man took a knife outside to threaten another man. His dw took that knife off him. He went back inside and got a bigger knife. Stabbed a man fatally in the back.
Manslaughter. Couldn't understand that tbh.. He twice decided to carry a knife.... 2 times to change his mind and revoke the action imo he knew he was going to do.
Very difficult to stay composed watching the trial play out....
I hope the judge didn't sleep that night..

There's a really interesting podcast series about this. I think it was recommended by a MN poster!

So many cases where a man had murdered his partner are treated as "crimes of passion", when in fact, the signs had been there for some time, and the violence could have been predicted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hj410j

I watched something on this. The man has been manipulated by a later with multiple mh conditions bpd eupd narsasistic etc she had a lot of character references from other partners etc of being like that and her mum etc. One day she threw a cup at him and he flipped and strangled then went got the hammer and killed her. So pushed over the edge.