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

[Thisissuss]

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...

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.

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 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..

Yes, it doesn't seem uncommon for it to be classed as manslaughter even when they have multiple points they could stop. I mean, surely every murder is loss of control if you think of it like that - you don't go about doing it daily so they wouldn't have done it if XYZ hadn't happened.

I hate the victim blaming.

It was that trial show first of all - the one when they had 2 different jurors who came to different conclusions. Just read this on BBC and it sounds very similar https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6v1e224x0o

When are men going to be asked to control their emotions as much as women do?

Thank you for posting this. All women should be listening to this and making their sons aware.

I found myself wondering the other day how many men who have attacked women and got a key to the face have said they were mugged by a bloke to friends and family instead. I bet there's some correlation there too, having to be the victim.

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'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?

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

Exactly - onus of proof is on the dead woman to show she didn't aggravate the man and he wasn't acting out of revenge! Sounds impossible.

It's not fit for purpose when jurors are being fed misogynistic crap online and society is teaming with double standards.

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!

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

I don't think anyone straddling a woman applying great pressure to her neck for a minute then finishing her off with a hammer is "in the moment or unintentional" though, do you? If you mean to do something for more than 10 seconds of continuous effort, it's not a "passing rage".

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.

Here was the show I think we are both thinking of
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jury-murder-trial

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.

Yes, that show has been eye opening for the male reactions.

I just imagine if they do that when behind the wheel, thousands of people would end up dead every day. They can control themselves in some situations, but not when they have someone weaker somewhere private.

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?

Quite - theft is an interesting one to apply it to.
I was hungry so I stole food, I smelled so I stole aftershave, I was poor so I stole their TV - ah that's completely fine, loss of control. Takes far less time to whip something into a pocket than to strangle someone then smash in their head.

Maximum of 7yrs for theft in UK. Man who killed Angela Crompton got 4 years.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

If you watch that 4Od show you can see what happens in the minds of the jurors. It is clearly based in misogynistic understanding "women wind men up".

Could you share the case you are talking about? We know most murders are committed by men and women who murder are likely to have mental health diagnosis.