To think you don’t “accidentally” strangle someone to death?

[DrizzleandDamp]

I give up, no murder conviction for this man:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884251/Police-officer-41-not-guilty-murdering-wife.html

There is no point me pursuing my case when these are the decisions made!

Doesn’t everyone agree on this though? Except for criminals maybe. I’m not particularly right wing, but I agree..

No, not really. There is not much evidence that just upping sentences does anything to bring down crime, and it's horrifically expensive. Which means that money isn't being spent elsewhere, for example on things that are more likely to reduce crime.

No one likes crime, so saying that they will be hard on criminals is easy pickings for political types. It also encourages them to exaggerate or whip up people's feelings that there is an increase of crime, whether or not it's true.

There's a hypothesis that what really works to reduce crime isn't stiffer sentences, but greater probability of being caught and convicted. A criminal doesn't care about the penalty if they believe they'll never get caught or convicted.

So spending budget on police and prosecution, not on prisons, could be a better use of the money.

I think if you knowingly engage in a violent action that's likely to result in death then it should be murder and not manslaughter

I think though by very definition that is what manslaughter is

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

I think part of the problem is that there are two distinct types of manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary). He tried to argue the latter he has been sentenced with the former.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Voluntary+manslaughter

Is a good read on it. It is a legal distinction as much as anything - though in practice comes out in slightly lower sentences. It does say though it shouldnt be seen as lesser to murder - he has been found by the judge GUILTY of killing her - just that mitigating circumstances have reduced his sentence.

Sadly there is no miscarriage of justice and no room for appeal. I think the Judge did very well within the confines of the law to give the sentence he did

On the judgement saying he was seriously wronged because he should have been the one telling his wife about the affair - that’s just not a good enough reason to lose temper. 1) if he had wanted to tell her, then surely he could have just taken it from there with the wife after the text. Wife thought text came from him, so why not add: ‘let’s talk when I get home.’ Clumsy, yes, but just really kicking some pace into telling her, which he claimed he was about to do anyways. However I don’t think he had any intention to tell. 2) he had 10 years time to tell the wife and didn’t; 3) instead of showing remorse and signs of winding it down, he accelerated his cheating by getting another OW.

Instead of being wronged with losing the opportunity to tell the wife and losing his temper because of that, he lost his temper because of misogynistic revenge, when the woman who dared to cross the line became too ‘difficult’ and hence he revenged in sudden anger. That then means it was murder.

@safariboot

There's a hypothesis that what really works to reduce crime isn't stiffer sentences, but greater probability of being caught and convicted. A criminal doesn't care about the penalty if they believe they'll never get caught or convicted.

So spending budget on police and prosecution, not on prisons, could be a better use of the money.

I can see that. Though I think in many crimes neither makes much of a difference, the conditions that lead up to the crime are what drive the behaviour.

Speaking of which, there are predictable things involved with a lot of crime, especially repeat offenders. Some of the biggest being substance abuse (and FAS is common in the prison population too) and mental illness and personality disorders. Drunkenness alone is implicated in a huge number of crimes.

If it’s not already been said - man slaughter is easier to prove

If manslaughter is easier to prove and to secure a conviction for, is there an argument to increase the sentencing parameters for manslaughter to nearer those of murder?

@Watermelon999 maximum sentence is life

He was charged with murder. The definition of murder in the English legal system is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” the term is premeditated and the jury ruled that they didn’t think the killing was premeditated