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...

Making their sons aware of what?

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

What a load of baloney!

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

Violent men are violent to all, not just women. Maybe listen to it?
If your son has a friend who has a violent past, you may want them to consider how that kind of person is impacting your son's ideology.

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.

I'm not sure what your comment means.

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 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.

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.

It is also place dependant. As I said, they wouldn't have done it in a car (where they might be injured) or with a man around. It is premeditated on that front at least.

You haven't even thought about listening to it, have you.
It never starts with murder, that is the point.

They were given the legal definitions.

Your post is about murder. People who murder. Your using it as an excuse to bash men. Hate to break it to you but most men dont murder.

Yes but look just how people on this thread are struggling to apply the legal definitions!
In real life they are given questions to answer - if you agree X, them they must be guilt of Y etc
Laypeople cannot be relied upon to interpret the law without direction

So the system isn't fit for purpose. You say the Judge decides on specific weirdly lenient sentences anyway, so if they are directing...

Absolutely agree with you!

You don't seem to be understanding the discussion at all.

Most murderers are men, though.

I think this is important- it's not about getting off Scot free.
It's ascertaining which charge can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes and?

I think some of the examples above should be partial defences of provocation. The case of R v Ahluwahlia 1992 establishes the defence of 'slow burn' provocation. In that example after many years of abuse she snapped and set fire to her husband (with a bucket of lit petrol) while he slept. She was convicted of manslaughter

I'm saying that show isn't reflective of real life. Try watching murder trial on BBC although that involves Scottish law, for something less sensationalist.

All judges have sentencing guidelines. They are not necessarily lenient.

I have watched that. Scottish law is certainly different though and IIRC you have to have a witness there to prove a rape at all?

I am ignorant as to who you say does the directing. If it isn't the judge asking rhetorical questions with his own potential bias, are the questions always the same? Sorry to keep editing; I know they are the Q's above but surely this completely depends on perception - a man might think he was wound up where a woman wouldn't for example. People who have no psychology background might forgive more, especially if they have no idea the person has a violent history.

Well maybe the thread should have been headed up- lets moan about men. Rather than using an example of one case of murder to then go on a tangent of man hating.