So if a man stabs his wife four times it's not actually murder if she's leaving him fir another man

[iPaid]

It's manslaughter apparently. The poor husband snaps, reaches for a knife and sticks it into her 4 times but isn't found guilty of murder because y'know what's a man to do when he knows his missus has got another chap?

Daily Mail link because my iPad is crashing on other newspapers.

And he'll probably be out in less than 8 years

should be appealed

Manslaughter doesn't mean "accidentally hit someone, they fell and hit their head so died".

I thought it was things like murder on grounds of diminished responsibility (e.g. when perpetrator is in state of psychosis etc.) or in cases when, say the victim and perpetrator are physically fighting but the perpetrator delivers a fatal blow; they intended to hurt the victim but not to kill them.

Is it true that no premeditation always means it will manslaughter not murder?

No. Otherwise there would be no reason for a defence of loss of control.

A good summing up of what is expected of judges and juries in these cases:

Directions to juries will now be even more complicated in sexual infidelity cases. Juries must be directed that sexual infidelity can be taken into account in determining whether the defendant actually lost self-control. They must then be directed as to all the possible triggers for the loss of self-control and told that, if they conclude that sexual infidelity was, in fact, the only trigger for the defendant’s conduct, then they must disregard it. However, if they conclude that there were other triggers, they may have regard to the victim’s sexual infidelity but only as part of the context in which to evaluate the other triggers and not as a trigger itself. If there may have been a permissible qualifying trigger or triggers, the jury must then determine whether a normal person in the defendant’s circumstances, which includes the circumstance of the discovery of sexual infidelity, might have reacted in the same or a similar way to the defendant. In such a case, jurors will now be required not so much to be mental gymnasts as mental contortionists.

www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Loss-Control-and-Sexual-Infidelity-Killings-%E2%80%93-More-%E2%80%9CMental-Gymnastics%E2%80%9D-Part-2

No it's absolutely not true William. In England you can get done for murder for glassing someone in a pub brawl on the spur of the moment after ten pints, and people do get convicted for things like that. In other countries premeditation plays a part but not here.

Manslaughter means either
a) murder where a partial defence applies like the case in question or
b) a criminal act that unexpectedly results in death (but not a serious physical assault intending gbh; that would be murder) or
c) gross negligence resulting in forseeable death such as a surgeon operating drunk.

That's a brief summary - it's all waaaay more complicated than that.

should be appealed

It can't be. The prosecution can appeal against sentence but not against the verdict. Given the sentencing guidelines this sentence does not appear to be unduly lenient.

I haven't read the whole thread. However, the jury considered all the evidence, not just the bits the press have chosen to tell us, and decided that this was manslaughter rather than murder. The judge did not direct them towards a manslaughter verdict.

I note that some people are saying that his attempts to cover up his actions mean it was murder. That is rubbish. The difference between manslaughter and murder is defined by what happens when the victim is killed, not by anything the attacker does after the event. In this case if the jury accepted that he lost control due to what is known legally as a "qualifying trigger" then it was manslaughter. To be precise, it was voluntary manslaughter (i.e. he intended to kill her).

The fact that he attempted to cover up what had happened affects the sentence. The starting point for voluntary manslaughter with a low degree of provocation is 12 years. The defendant in this case has been sentenced to 15 years. As far as I can see the increase in sentence above the starting point is due to his attempts to cover up the crime.

Thanks for the explanation of manslaughter, Shirley. That's roughly what I thought but I could not find the right words. I'm glad to hear the premeditation stuff isn't true (at least in England) as that does not seem right at all.

Sorry I feel bad for discussing this when this poor woman has had her life taken from her. Her poor family.

I would not want to be turned into a misogynistic cunt while trying to form an opinion on this!

To be fair to the Mail readers by far the majority of comments are in line with the comments on here and those that aren't have been voted down.

Let's hope this is appealed. Wouldn't an organisation like Rights Of Women do it? (Ignorant of how funding for appeals works.)

I was a bit more sympathetic to the rape case linked, though. This victim did not get justice. However, the summing up clarified he'd been given an exceptionally lenient sentence due to his unusual circumstances - basically, that prison would fuck him up even more and he was being given the chance to straighten himself out.

I'm not claiming to know what the 'right' outcome should have been, but I don't envy the judge in that case.

For information: www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence

"I don't think there should be any defences against murder, bar insanity."

Agree with this. We are too lenient in this country. Should be a full life sentence too for every murder.

And yes women and girls aren't as important in the eyes of the law that's not martyrdom that's fact. Just look at rape conviction rates for starters!

Baconyum, yes there are more women that get raped, however there are a whole host of women rapists/ paedophiles that get incredibly lean sentences,

Equally*

Equally are* fogs

Fgs* autocorrect sucks

Just an example here that both genders get shitty sentences

www.timesrecordnews.com/news/crime/woman-sentenced-to-deferred-adjudication-in-manslaughter-case-28d78635-6fc1-6e86-e053-0100007f0d3d-364669201.html

This woman got just a $1000 fine for a manslaughter charge killing her boyfriend, whilst in the same court a man got 5 years in jail for stealing food stamps

Assuming she was having an affair it would seem right thay she was leaving her killer husband. Such a shame she didn't manage it

You can't appeal an acquittal unless there's new evidence which is presumably not going to happen in this case. I think it would be useful to see the full report because it's possible that the news media have missed something crucial.

I would disagree that murder should always mean life. There are genuine cases of provocation (especially in the case of domestic violence) or diminished responsibility or failed suicide pacts where a life sentence would be too harsh. But this case seems wrong unless there's something huge we're missing.

So glassing someone in a pub is automatically murder but stabbing your wife 4 times might not be?
Surely loss of control applies equally to both those situations?

Yes arguably you could argue loss of control / self-defence / diminished responsibility for either case, or any murder. But they are both prime facie murder before you prove that partial defence.

Its not like he stopped, was horrified by what he did then called the police - he killed her and dumped her body.

Thats not devestated love. Thats how dare you humiliate me, I own you

So how was this partial defence proved in this case? Everything screams the opposite.

How can it not be premeditated?

He picked up a knife and then stabbed her 4 times, once after the other. Then he hid the body.

OMG

Hiding the body doesn't prove it was premeditated. Stabbing someone four times doesn't prove it was premeditated. But actually it doesn't matter either way - you can have premeditated voluntary manslaughter* (rarer but possible) or you can have spur of the moment murder.

*Voluntary manslaughter is where something that would otherwise be murder gets knocked down to manslaughter by one of the partial defences.